Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study

Determinants of urban mosquito population density... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661" }, "headline": "Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study", "datePublished": "2025-07-07T14:18:31", "dateModified": "2025-12-18T07:44:35", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rekha T" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jithin Surendran" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sreedevi SR" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Aishwariya Narasimhan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nihal R Shankar" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Arhan Vilas K" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Gayana Shree A N" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hari Priya Muppala" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Faiz Abdulaziz" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rohan HS" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ameya Singh" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Vector-borne diseases transmitted by various arthropods account for approximately 17% of the global burden of infectious diseases. These arthropods, especially mosquitoes, are particularly rampant in Mangalore because of the humid coastal climate and scaling urbanization. Objectives To identify key environmental and household determinants of mosquito presence in urban Mangalore, to assess household-level prevention practices, and to evaluate community perceptions and self-reported disease burden towards mosquito-borne diseases. Methods The study involved households in selected wards of the urban field practice area of the Department of Community Medicine, a teaching and service field area under the Mangalore City Corporation, selected through convenience sampling. Data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire covering sociodemographic details, mosquito proliferation, breeding determinants, behavioral measures, perception of mosquito control, and self-reported cases of mosquito-borne diseases. The data were analyzed using Jamovi version 2.6.26. Results Among 95 respondents (70.5% female and 94.8% literate), 42.1% reported an increase in mosquito breeding sites over the past year, 69.4% recognized the rainy season as the peak period of mosquito activity. Water stagnation [74.7% (95% CI: 64.8–83.1)] and ongoing construction activity [32.4% (95% CI: 21.8–44.1)] emerged as significant environmental determinants of higher mosquito density which was not statistically significant. A large majority of households (91.6%) reported using chemical measures for mosquito prevention, while 92.6% of participants were aware of mosquito-borne diseases. Despite this, nearly one-third (29.4%) of respondents had experienced a mosquito-borne illness in the preceding year, with 71.4% dengue infection. The use of mosquito repellents was paradoxically associated with a higher prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases (OR = 3.7; 95% CI: 1.4–9.6; p = 0.024). Conclusion Although awareness and preventive measure uptake were high, gaps remain in consistent environmental control and municipal interventions. Strengthening local authority action on water stagnation and construction-site management is essential for sustainable vector control. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661", "name": "Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses:..." } } ] } Home Browse Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses:... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article T R, Surendran J, SR S et al. Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164704.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Rekha T https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2278-1445 1 , Jithin Surendran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6857-8234 1 , Sreedevi SR 1 , [...] Aishwariya Narasimhan https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3499-0409 1 , Nihal R Shankar 2 , Arhan Vilas K 2 , Gayana Shree A N https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3778-7465 2 , Hari Priya Muppala 2 , Faiz Abdulaziz 2 , Rohan HS 2 , Ameya Singh 2 Rekha T https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2278-1445 1 , Jithin Surendran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6857-8234 1 , [...] Sreedevi SR 1 , Aishwariya Narasimhan https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3499-0409 1 , Nihal R Shankar 2 , Arhan Vilas K 2 , Gayana Shree A N https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3778-7465 2 , Hari Priya Muppala 2 , Faiz Abdulaziz 2 , Rohan HS 2 , Ameya Singh 2 PUBLISHED 18 Dec 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 2 Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India Rekha T Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation Jithin Surendran Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Sreedevi SR Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources Aishwariya Narasimhan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Software Nihal R Shankar Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Arhan Vilas K Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Gayana Shree A N Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Hari Priya Muppala Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Faiz Abdulaziz Roles: Data Curation, Investigation Rohan HS Roles: Data Curation, Investigation Ameya Singh Roles: Data Curation, Investigation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway. This article is included in the Global Public Health gateway. Abstract Background Vector-borne diseases transmitted by various arthropods account for approximately 17% of the global burden of infectious diseases. These arthropods, especially mosquitoes, are particularly rampant in Mangalore because of the humid coastal climate and scaling urbanization. Objectives To identify key environmental and household determinants of mosquito presence in urban Mangalore, to assess household-level prevention practices, and to evaluate community perceptions and self-reported disease burden towards mosquito-borne diseases. Methods The study involved households in selected wards of the urban field practice area of the Department of Community Medicine, a teaching and service field area under the Mangalore City Corporation, selected through convenience sampling. Data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire covering sociodemographic details, mosquito proliferation, breeding determinants, behavioral measures, perception of mosquito control, and self-reported cases of mosquito-borne diseases. The data were analyzed using Jamovi version 2.6.26. Results Among 95 respondents (70.5% female and 94.8% literate), 42.1% reported an increase in mosquito breeding sites over the past year, 69.4% recognized the rainy season as the peak period of mosquito activity. Water stagnation [74.7% (95% CI: 64.8–83.1)] and ongoing construction activity [32.4% (95% CI: 21.8–44.1)] emerged as significant environmental determinants of higher mosquito density which was not statistically significant. A large majority of households (91.6%) reported using chemical measures for mosquito prevention, while 92.6% of participants were aware of mosquito-borne diseases. Despite this, nearly one-third (29.4%) of respondents had experienced a mosquito-borne illness in the preceding year, with 71.4% dengue infection. The use of mosquito repellents was paradoxically associated with a higher prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases (OR = 3.7; 95% CI: 1.4–9.6; p = 0.024). Conclusion Although awareness and preventive measure uptake were high, gaps remain in consistent environmental control and municipal interventions. Strengthening local authority action on water stagnation and construction-site management is essential for sustainable vector control. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Vector Borne Diseases, Malaria, Dengue, Epidemiologic Factors, Mosquito Control Corresponding Author(s) Jithin Surendran ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Jithin Surendran Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 T R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: T R, Surendran J, SR S et al. Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164704.4 ) First published: 07 Jul 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164704.1 ) Latest published: 18 Dec 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164704.4 ) Revised Amendments from Version 3 Thanks to the reviewer comments, this revised version incorporates few conceptual, methodological, and analytical enhancements compared to the previously published version. The Introduction has been expanded to include a dedicated paragraph on coastal urban vector ecology, highlighting the unique ecological and urbanization-driven determinants of mosquito proliferation in Mangalore, supported by recent evidence from other Indian coastal cities. A new conceptual framework section has been added using the eco-social framework to better situate the study within contemporary social-ecological theory. The research questions and objectives have been reorganized into clearly defined primary and secondary components for improved alignment with the study aims. Correspondingly, the Abstract has been mildly revised to reflect these refinements in the objective structure. The Methods section has been substantially strengthened by adding details on questionnaire validation procedures, including pilot testing, and Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency. Operational definitions have been standardized and expanded for key variables such as mosquito presence, nuisance scores, self-reported mosquito-borne disease, and water stagnation. The sampling strategy has been clarified by describing purposive ward selection, random street initiation, random starting-point selection, and acknowledging the exclusion of apartment households. Analytical reporting has been strengthened by providing clearer description and presentation of the already existing multivariable logistic regression models, which used to identify independent predictors. The Results section has been revised to avoid causal language, with all tables reformatted to include clear titles, denominators, consistent n (%), 95% confidence intervals, crude and adjusted odds ratios, and corrected p-values (which were available in the previous version). The Discussion has been strengthened with expanded strengths and limitations—including seasonality, selection bias, and self-reporting—and enhanced public-health and policy implications. A few additional references have also been incorporated to support the expanded introductory content. Thanks to the reviewer comments, this revised version incorporates few conceptual, methodological, and analytical enhancements compared to the previously published version. The Introduction has been expanded to include a dedicated paragraph on coastal urban vector ecology, highlighting the unique ecological and urbanization-driven determinants of mosquito proliferation in Mangalore, supported by recent evidence from other Indian coastal cities. A new conceptual framework section has been added using the eco-social framework to better situate the study within contemporary social-ecological theory. The research questions and objectives have been reorganized into clearly defined primary and secondary components for improved alignment with the study aims. Correspondingly, the Abstract has been mildly revised to reflect these refinements in the objective structure. The Methods section has been substantially strengthened by adding details on questionnaire validation procedures, including pilot testing, and Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency. Operational definitions have been standardized and expanded for key variables such as mosquito presence, nuisance scores, self-reported mosquito-borne disease, and water stagnation. The sampling strategy has been clarified by describing purposive ward selection, random street initiation, random starting-point selection, and acknowledging the exclusion of apartment households. Analytical reporting has been strengthened by providing clearer description and presentation of the already existing multivariable logistic regression models, which used to identify independent predictors. The Results section has been revised to avoid causal language, with all tables reformatted to include clear titles, denominators, consistent n (%), 95% confidence intervals, crude and adjusted odds ratios, and corrected p-values (which were available in the previous version). The Discussion has been strengthened with expanded strengths and limitations—including seasonality, selection bias, and self-reporting—and enhanced public-health and policy implications. A few additional references have also been incorporated to support the expanded introductory content. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Siraj Khan See the authors' detailed response to the review by Asma Rahim See the authors' detailed response to the review by Kristan Alexander Schneider See the authors' detailed response to the review by Dr Divya Bharathi READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Vectors are defined as organisms that transmit infectious pathogens from humans to humans or from animals to humans. Common vector-borne diseases, including malaria, lymphatic filariasis, dengue, chikungunya, West Nile fever, yellow fever, Chagas disease, bubonic plague, and leishmaniasis, are transmitted by arthropod vectors. 1 Together, these diseases account for approximately 17% of all infectious diseases worldwide and are responsible for nearly 700,000 deaths annually. 2 Mosquitoes are among the most prominent arthropod vectors, representing a significant portion of the vector-borne disease burden, with over 80% of the global population at risk. 1 Mosquitoes are arthropods of medical importance under the class Insecta and are further divided into Anopheline and Culicine mosquitoes. Anopheline mosquitoes are the primary vectors of malaria; they generally exhibit nocturnal biting habits (typically bites between 10 PM and 4 AM) and indoor resting behavior and breed in clean, sunlit water sources. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), malaria alone accounted for approximately 249 million cases globally in 2023, with 94% occurring in the WHO African Region. 3 India contributes nearly 52% of malaria cases outside sub-Saharan Africa and represents approximately 79% of the malaria burden within the WHO Southeast Asia Region. 4 , 5 Culicine mosquitoes, notably Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus , are highly domesticated; they breed in water-filled containers in domestic and peridomestic areas and bite primarily during the day and early evening. These species transmit viral infections such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika, which contribute to tens of thousands of deaths per year despite causing hundreds of millions of infections. 6 – 8 Recent WHO global dengue surveillance, from January to November 2024, the total number of dengue cases was 13,860,025, with a total of 9990 deaths. 9 , 10 The first chikungunya outbreak in India occurred in the 1960s, followed by a period of dormancy until a major resurgence in 2006, which affected 13 states in the country. 11 , 12 India’s vulnerability to mosquito-borne diseases is exacerbated by its eco-socio-demographic conditions, making it a major public health concern. Karnataka, a southern state in India, faces a significant burden of mosquito-borne diseases including malaria, dengue, lymphatic filariasis, and Japanese encephalitis, with the prevalence varying across districts. In 2010, Karnataka reported 1,09,118 malaria cases, 28,065 of which were attributed to Plasmodium falciparum. 13 The coastal cities of Mangalore and Udupi together account for approximately 72% of the malaria cases reported in Karnataka. 14 In particular, Mangalore—a coastal town in the Dakshina Kannada district with frequent heavy rainfall and high humidity—provides an ideal environment for mosquito proliferation. An entomological survey conducted in Mangalore taluk identified 26 mosquito species across six genera, with an annual parasite index of 10–12, indicating that the area was malaria endemic. 15 Coastal urban vector ecology, as seen in malaria-endemic cities such as Surat, is strongly influenced by relative humidity, which plays a critical role in the survival and population expansion of urban malaria vectors such as Anopheles stephensi . This urban mosquito thrives in densely built environments, utilizing artificial containers and construction-site water for breeding rather than depending on rainfall. Consequently, transmission intensity remains closely linked to relative humidity levels, with values above approximately 60% providing highly favorable conditions for sustained malaria transmission. 16 Mangalore, situated in a humid tropical coastal region, experiences year-round mosquito presence that peaks during the rainy season, with stagnant water and inadequate sanitation driving high vector densities. Rapid urbanization—characterized by extensive construction, poor drainage, and deteriorating road conditions—has further sustained the endemicity of mosquito-borne diseases in the area. 17 Numerous studies have identified environmental, socioeconomic, and behavioral determinants of mosquito proliferation and vector-borne disease transmission. Aquatic habitats, such as pools, streams, and water-filled containers, are critical breeding sites for mosquitoes. While many Anopheles species breed in relatively clean, fresh water, this is not universal. Notably, the urban vector Anopheles stephensi , which has become invasive in several regions including the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa, is well adapted for breeding in domestic water containers and polluted urban habitats. 18 It is also the predominant urban malaria vector in many parts of India, including coastal Karnataka. 19 Furthermore, behavioral adaptations among Anopheles species have been documented in response to vector control interventions, with some species shifting toward earlier or greater diurnal biting activity following indoor residual spraying (IRS) and the deployment of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs). 20 A study by Wilke et al. (2020) in Miami-Dade Florida identified a few of the common aquatic habits that are responsible for harboring 80% of all immature Ae. Aegypti and increasing their proliferation in the presence of those aquatic habitats. 21 Similarly, Prashanthi et al. (2007) reported that Anopheles breeds in pools and streams, where people living in close proximity are at high risk of malaria and its transmission. 22 These studies have also revealed that socioeconomic factors exacerbate the vulnerability to malaria, as economically marginalized populations often lack access to anti-mosquito measures, such as mosquito nets or repellents, and may follow age-old traditional practices, such as sleeping outdoors at night amid peak mosquito activity. The use of preventive measures, such as effective lids over water storage containers and frequent emptying of containers, significantly reduces the incidence of arthropod proliferation, especially in Ae. aegypti. 23 Studies have shown a linear relationship between growing populations, rising socioeconomic status, and increased mosquito proliferation, particularly in economically marginalized densely populated areas vulnerable to dengue. 24 A study by Srividya et al. (2018), through logistic regression analyses, indicated that tiled and concrete dwellings increased the likelihood of an area becoming a dengue hotspot by 2.0 and 2.9 times, respectively, due to the conducive breeding environment. 25 There is a significant relationship between rapid, unplanned urbanization and the proliferation of mosquitoes. Mangalore has experienced dramatic urbanization in recent years, and these unplanned disorganized cities aggravate mosquito proliferation, especially in Aedes aegypti by creating artificial breeding grounds, such as stagnant water pools, and increasing disease transmission. 26 Climate change also has a considerable effect on vector proliferation. It reduces larval development time and rapidly increases mosquito populations. This also leads to a reduction in the extrinsic incubation period of pathogens in mosquitoes, thereby increasing their infectiousness. 26 Community knowledge and behavior are critical for effective vector control. A study by Garbin et al. (2021) revealed that while 76% of respondents believed that their neighborhood was likely to be infected by a disease spread by mosquitoes, but no action was taken by them, highlighting a gap between awareness and actions. 27 Another study by Madeira et al. (2002) demonstrated that didactic interventions among schoolchildren increased knowledge about mosquito breeding sites and vector proliferation, leading to heightened awareness. 28 Various determinants of mosquito proliferation have been identified across different studies, and the present study builds on this evidence by exploring the primary objective of examining the specific environmental, socioeconomic, and behavioral factors driving mosquito proliferation in Mangalore and simultaneously fulfilling its secondary objectives of assessing community measures to mitigate vector-borne disease risk. This study also adopts the eco-social framework, which links environmental conditions, social structures, and community behaviours to disease risk. 29 This framework clarifies how structural and ecological pathways sustain mosquito proliferation in Mangalore and influence community vulnerability to vector-borne diseases. By examining vector nuisance, disease prevalence, and community engagement, this study aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 3.3—ending epidemics of malaria and other communicable diseases. Objectives Primary objective • To identify the environmental and household determinants associated with increased mosquito presence in the urban field practice area of Mangalore. Secondary objectives • To describe household-level preventive practices and community perceptions of mosquito-borne diseases. • To estimate the prevalence of self-reported mosquito-borne disease in the last 12 months and assess associations with environmental and behavioral factors after adjustment. Methodology This community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Mangalore, a coastal city on the western coast of Karnataka, a South Indian state. Mangalore with an area of 132.4 km 2 is situated between 12°50′30″ N to 13°01′00″ N and 74°48′0″ E to 74°55′00″ E coordinates, is a tropical river basin, and has a humid climate of peninsular India. Mangalore is bounded by the western Ghats to the east, the Arabian Sea to the west, Kerala to the south, and the Udupi district to the north. Mangalore, the district headquarters of Dakshina Kannada, is administered by a city corporation founded in 1865 and consists of 60 wards. 30 Wards 27, 28, 31, 32 and 33 were chosen as study areas ( Figure 1 ). According to the Census of India 2011, the population of the Mangalore City Corporation was 499,487. In the absence of a more recent official census, population projections indicate that it may have grown to approximately 700,000 residents by 2024. 31 Figure 1. Map showing the Mangalore City Corporation study areas consisting of 60 wards. The study was conducted between September and October 2024, the late monsoon transition season in Mangalore. The sample size was calculated based on a previous study conducted in Mangalore, Karnataka, 32 which reported that 83% of the people used preventive measures such as mosquito nets to prevent mosquito bites, using this as our anticipated proportion and 10% relative precision, 97.5% quantile of the standard normal distribution, and considering 20% non-response rate as 95 sample size was calculated as follows: where p = 83%, d = 10% of 83% = 8.3%, Z = 1.96 n = Z 1 − a 2 2 P ( 1 − P ) d 2 n = 1.96 2 0.83 ( 1 − 0.83 ) 0.083 2 n = 0.5421 0.006889 = 78 To account for 20% of the non-responses, 95 households were selected. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore with No: IEC KMC MLR 09/2024/587, followed by permission from the Head of the Institute. The written consent was taken on an ‘Informed consent form’ which was provided to the participants ≥18 years of age for signature, and the participants <18 years of age were excluded from the study. All participants had the right to withdraw at any stage of the study, and all incomplete responses were considered withdrawal and excluded from the analysis. The study participants were approached from a household that was selected from five wards out of the total 60 wards present under the Mangalore City Corporation on the basis of the feasibility and representativeness of urban residential areas; one reliable informant residing in the household for more than at least 1 year who was aware of the household conditions and consented was included in the study, whereas temporary residents of less than a year, apartment complexes, and households without adult personnel were excluded. Apartment complexes were excluded because shared environmental exposures (e.g., corridors, rooftop tanks, and common waste areas) are not uniformly perceived by all residents, and this misconception may increase the risk of misclassification. Stand-alone houses, with clearer and self-contained environmental boundaries, allow for more consistent and valid household-level data collection. The number of households included in our study was divided equally among each ward; that is, a total of 19 households from each of the selected wards were considered for the study. A random street was selected from each ward, and then, standing at the end of each randomly selected street, a random starting house was identified by selecting one house from the first five houses on that street. From this starting point, every 3 rd house present on the left side of the lane was considered for the study, which was continued in a clockwise order; in case of failure to meet the inclusion criteria, absence, or denial to take part in the study, the next house was considered. When the head of the household was absent during the time of data collection, information was collected from the oldest adult residing in the household. A pretested, semi-structured, and internally validated questionnaire was developed for data collection. The questionnaire was constructed following an extensive literature review using electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, covering studies published between 2000 and 2024 that examined mosquito ecology, vector proliferation and nuisance, community perceptions, preventive practices and self-reported mosquito-borne illnesses in urban settings. Relevant national guidelines from the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP) were also reviewed to ensure contextual alignment. 33 , 34 Content validity was assessed by a panel of three public health specialists and two medico social workers—from the Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore. Each expert independently assessed the questionnaire items for clarity, relevance, simplicity, and ambiguity using a four-point Likert scale (1 = not relevant, 4 = highly relevant). The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) was calculated as the proportion of experts rating each item as either 3 or 4. Items with an I-CVI ≤ 0.78 were revised or removed on the basis of the panel’s feedback. The scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave), computed as the average of all the I-CVIs, score ≥ 0.8 was considered satisfactory, indicating good overall content validity. The questionnaire was pilot tested among 20 household participants from the target population to ensure clarity and feasibility. Feedback from the pilot led to minor revisions in wording and the order of items to enhance clarity and comprehension. Internal consistency for each construct was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with values ≥0.7 considered acceptable, indicating reliable measurement of the respective domains. The data were recorded after informed consent was obtained from the head of households. The questionnaire was self-administered; however, for illiterate participants, it was administered by the investigators. The questionnaire was designed to assess community perceptions of mosquito nuisance and other determinants. Operational definitions for key study variables were established prior to data collection. Mosquito presence was defined as the observed occurrence of adult mosquitoes within or around the household at the time of the survey and was further quantified by the frequency of sightings reported by the informant. Accordingly, the nuisance score reflects the participant’s perceived intensity of mosquito activity compared with the previous year, with “mild” indicating that mosquitoes were rarely noticed or caused minor annoyance (≤2 bites per day on average), and “moderate-to-severe” indicating that mosquitoes were frequently noticed, causing significant annoyance or ≥3 bites per day on average, interfering with daily activities or sleep. 21 , 22 Self-reported mosquito-borne disease was operationally defined as any episode of malaria, dengue, chikungunya, or other vector-borne illness experienced in the past 12 months, as recalled by the participant. Only episodes for which the participant sought treatment or received a probable diagnosis from a healthcare professional were considered to improve the reliability of reporting. Water stagnation was defined as visible standing water persisting for more than 48 hours after rainfall or resulting from blocked drains within the household compound or immediate neighborhood. The data collected were entered into MS Excel and analyzed using Jamovi version 2.6.26. Descriptive statistics are presented as frequencies and proportions. Confidence intervals (95%) for proportions were computed using the exact binomial method. The association between two categorical variables was assessed using the chi-square test. The strength of the association between the independent and dependent variables were measured using odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and significant p value of <0.05. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine the independent predictors of mosquito presence, preventive practices within households, and the occurrence of mosquito-borne diseases. Variables with p value <0.2 in the univariate logistic regression were included in the multivariate model. To adjust for familywise error rate (FWER), Holms correction was applied to the p values. Results The study included 95 households; the majority of the participants were above the age of 45 years (72.6%), and most were females (70.5%). The majority of participants (94.8%) were educated and 61.1% reported having access to a healthcare facility within 2 km of their residence ( Table 1 ). Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants (N = 95). Socio-demographic details n (%) 95% CI Age (in years) 18-30 12 (12.6) 6.70% - 21.03% 31-45 14 (14.7) 8.30% - 23.50% 46-60 34 (35.8) 26.21% - 46.30% >60 35 (36.8) 27.20% - 47.40% Gender Male 28 (29.5) 20.60% - 39.71% Female 67 (70.5) 60.30% - 79.44% Education Illiterate 5 (5.2) 1.73% - 11.90% Primary School 11 (11.6) 5.92% - 19.80% High School + PUC 46 (48.4) 38.04% - 58.90% Degree 33 (34.7) 25.30% - 45.20% Proximity of Nearby Health Care facility (in km) 0-2 58 (61.1) 50.50% - 70.90% >2-4 25 (26.3) 17.81% - 36.40% >4 12 (12.6) 6.70% - 21.03% Among the study participants, 42.1% reported an increase in mosquito breeding sites past year. Most participants perceived a moderate to severe mosquito presence both indoors (67.4%) and outdoors (87.4%). The evening hours (4–8 pm) were identified as the peak biting time by 71.6% of the respondents. Mosquito nuisance was most prominent during the rainy season (69.5%), and 30.5% reported disturbed sleep or discomfort due to mosquito bites at night ( Table 2 ). Table 2. Perceived mosquito proliferation and nuisance (N = 95). Perception n (%) 95% CI Increase in mosquito breeding sites in last 1 year (yes) 40 (42.1) 32.04% - 52.70% How would you rate the presence of mosquitoes inside the house? Mild 31 (32.6) 23.40% - 43.02% Moderate to Severe 64 (67.4) 57.0% - 76.64% How would you rate the presence of mosquitoes outside the house? Mild 12 (12.6) 6.70% - 21.03% Moderate to Severe 83 (87.4) 79.00% - 93.0% Time of peak mosquito biting Morning (6-10 am) 8 (8.4) 3.71% - 15.92% Evening (4-8 pm) 68 (71.6) 61.40% - 80.40% Night (After 8 pm) 19 (20.0) 12.50% - 29.50% Mosquito bites causing disturbed sleep or discomfort at night 29 (30.5) 21.50% - 40.82% Weather conditions in which mosquitoes are mostly prevalent Rainy season 66 (69.5) 59.20% - 78.51% Hot weather 16 (16.8) 9.94% - 25.90% No noticeable difference 13 (13.7) 7.50% - 22.30% Overall mosquito nuisance in locality compared to past one year Mild 38 (40.0) 30.10% - 50.60% Moderate to Severe 57 (60.0) 49.44% - 69.92% Water stagnation 74.7% and dense vegetation 54.7% were the most frequently reported environmental conditions associated with mosquito proliferation. Other contributing factors included flowerpots (84.5% among those reporting stagnation), nearby water bodies (20%) and garbage dumping (13.8%) ( Table 3 ). Table 3. Determinants of mosquito breeding (N = 95). Determinants of mosquito breeding * n (%) 95% CI Water stagnation (n = 71) 71 (74.7) 64.80% - 83.10% Puddles 53 (74.6) 62.92% - 84.23% Flowerpots 60 (84.5) 74.0% - 92.0% Construction sites 23 (32.4) 21.80% - 44.10% Garbage Dumping 13 (13.7) 7.50% - 22.30% Presence of water body 19 (20.0) 12.50% - 29.50% Presence of dense vegetation 52 (54.7) 44.20% - 65.0% Water storage in uncovered containers 12 (12.6) 6.70% - 21.03% Presence of water leaks or overflow from pipes and tanks 8 (8.4) 3.71% - 15.92% * Multiple responses. Most households reported using chemical measures such as sprays, vaporizers, or coils (91.6%), closing doors and windows (81.1%), and using mosquito nets or screens (55.8%). Approximately half (51.6%) cleaned their surroundings daily, whereas 38.9% checked for water stagnation weekly. However, 58.9% stated that the municipality rarely conducts cleaning activities, and 50.5% reported no anti-mosquito fogging by local authorities ( Table 4 ). Table 4. Behavioural and preventive measures by participants for mosquito control (N = 95). Preventive measures n (%) 95% CI Type of measure * Chemical 87 (91.6) 84.10% - 96.30% Mosquito nets, window screens or meshes 53 (55.8) 45.23% - 66.0% Closing doors and windows 77 (81.1) 71.72% - 88.40% Other personal measures 15 (15.8) 9.12% - 24.70% Mosquito repellent/coils Yes, daily 24 (25.3) 16.91% - 35.22% Yes, occasionally 23 (24.2) 16.01% - 34.10% Never 48 (50.5) 40.10% - 61.0% Insect repellent before sleep Yes 12 (12.6) 6.70% - 21.03% No 83 (87.4) 79.0% - 93.30% Cleaning of surroundings By household members Daily 49 (51.6) 41.10% - 62.0% Weekly 31 (32.6) 23.40% - 43.02% Occasionally 15 (15.8) 9.12% - 24.70% By municipality Yes 39 (41.0) 31.10% - 51.62% No 56 (58.9) 48.40% - 68.94% Water stagnation (Checking and eliminating stagnation) Daily 17 (17.8) 10.80% - 27.10% Weekly 37 (38.9) 29.11% - 49.60% Occasionally 30 (31.6) 22.42% - 41.92% Never 11 (11.6) 5.92% - 19.80% Check holes in window screens/mosquito nets Regularly (monthly/more) 24 (25.2) 16.91% - 35.22% Occasionally 17 (17.9) 10.80% - 27.10% Rarely 17 (17.9) 10.80% - 27.10% Never 37 (39.0) 29.11% - 49.50% Anti-mosquito fogging by local authorities Frequently # 6 (6.3) 2.40% - 13.24% Occasionally 41 (43.1) 33.03% - 53.72% Never 48 (50.5) 40.10% - 61.0% * Multiple responses. # Frequently: weekly or monthly. Awareness of mosquito-borne diseases was high (92.6%) reporting knowledge of at least one mosquito-borne disease. Malaria (96.6%) and dengue (93.2%) being the most commonly recognized diseases. Most participants (96.8%) believed that education and awareness campaigns are crucial for disease prevention. A majority (83.1%) identified both clean and dirty water as potential breeding sources, and 81.2% noted that mosquito proliferation peaks during the rainy season ( Table 5 ). Table 5. Awareness and perception of mosquito borne diseases and mosquito control measures (N = 95). Awareness and perception n (%) 95% CI Awareness about mosquito borne disease * 88 (92.6) 85.41% - 97.0% Malaria 85 (96.6) 90.40% - 99.3% Dengue 82 (93.2) 85.8% - 97.5% Chikungunya 29 (33) 33.0% - 43.8% Zika 8 (9.1) 4.01% - 17.13% Filariasis 9 (10.2) 4.80% - 18.53% Perception of Preventive measures to be taken to avoid Mosquito-borne diseases * Regular cleaning of surroundings 76 (80.0) 70.54% - 87.51% Eliminating stagnant water 71 (74.7) 64.80% - 83.10% Usage of insecticide sprays 50 (52.6) 42.12% - 63.0% Usage of mosquito nets 46 (48.4) 38.04% - 68.90% Education and spreading awareness 92 (96.8) 91.10% - 99.34% Perception of community on determinants of mosquito proliferation a) Water stagnation Clean water 16 (16.8) 9.94% - 25.90% Dirty water 44 (46.3) 36.02% - 56.84% Both clean and dirty water 35 (36.8) 27.20% - 47.40% b) Seasonal variation 85 (89.5) 81.50% - 94.84% Rainy season 69 (81.2) 71.24% - 88.84% Summer season (Dry Hot weather) 16 (18.8) 11.20% - 28.80% * Multiple responses. In the past year, 29.4% of the participants reported suffering from a mosquito-borne disease, primarily dengue (71.4%) and malaria (28.5%). Common symptoms included fever (96.4%), headache (78.5%), joint pain (60.7%), and muscle pain (46.4%). Most sought treatment at private clinics (82.2%). Post recovery complications such as generalized weakness were reported by 92.3% of the patients (N=13) ( Table 6 ). Table 6. Self-reported cases and outcomes of mosquito borne diseases (N=95). Self-Reported cases N (%) 95% CI Suffered from any mosquito-borne disease in the past 1 Year Yes 28 (29.4) 20.60% - 39.71% Mosquito borne Disease (N = 28) Malaria 8 (28.5) 13.22% - 48.70% Dengue 20 (71.4) 51.33% - 86.80% Symptoms * (N = 28) Fever 27 (96.4) 81.70% - 99.91% Headache 22 (78.5) 59.10% - 91.70% Joint Pain 17 (60.7) 40.60% - 78.50% Rash 2 (7.1) 1.8% - 23.50% Muscle Pain 13 (46.4) 27.51% - 66.13% Others 17 (60.7) 40.60% - 78.50% Place of Treatment (N = 28) Public Health Centre 5 (17.8) 6.1% - 36.9% Private Clinic 23 (82.2) 63.11% - 93.94% Complications after recovery * (N = 13) Weaknesses 12 (92.3) 64.0% - 99.8% Cold 1 (7.6) 0.20% - 36.03% Leg Pain 1 (7.6) 0.20% - 36.03% Headache 1 (7.6) 0.20% - 36.03% Eye Pain 1 (7.6) 0.20% - 36.03% * Multiple choice question. Variables with p value <0.2 in the univariate logistic regression were included in the multivariable logistic regression model and both unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were presented. After applying Holm’s correction for the familywise error rate (FWER), the logistic regression model showed no significant associations between mosquito density and environmental factors such as water stagnation, construction sites, nearby water bodies, dense vegetation, garbage dumping, type of water storage, or water leaks ( Table 7 ). Table 7. Associations of environmental factors with mosquito density: univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (N=95). Variable Increased mosquito density Unadjusted OR (95% CI) p value Adjusted OR (95% CI) p value Yes (%) n = 49 No (%) n = 46 Presence of water stagnation Yes No 34 (69.3) 15 (30.6) 22 (47.8) 24 (52.1) 2.5 (1.1-5.7) 0.198 # 2.1 (0.9-5) 0.097 Presence of construction sites Yes No 17 (34.6) 32 (65.3) 6 (13.0) 40 (86.9) 3.5 (1.2-10.0) 0.098 # 3 (1-8.8) 0.084 Presence of any water body (pond, lake, etc.) Yes No 8 (16.3) 41 (83.6) 7 (15.2) 39 (84.7) 1.1 (0.4-3.3) 0.882 - - Presence of Dense Vegetation Yes No 31 (63.2) 18 (36.7) 21 (45.6) 25 (54.3) 2.1 (0.9-4.6) 0.425 - - Presence of Garbage dumping sites Yes No 8 (16.3) 41 (83.6) 5 (10.8) 41 (89.1) 1.6 (0.5-5.3) 0.878 - - Type of Water storage Covered containers Uncovered containers 41 (83.6) 8 (16.3) 42 (91.3) 4 (8.6) 2.1 (0.6-7.3) 0.789 - - Presence of water leaks or overflow from tanks or taps Yes No 6 (12.2) 43 (87.7) 2 (4.3) 44 (95.6) 3.1 (0.6-16.1) 0.664 - - # Holm-adjusted p ≤ 0.2 included in multivariable model. The use of mosquito repellents or coils was positively associated with self-reported mosquito-borne disease (OR = 3.7; 95% CI: 1.4–9.6; p = 0.024), although this finding likely reflects greater repellent use in households experiencing greater mosquito burden rather than indicating any causal influence of repellents on disease risk. Other preventive practices including the use of mosquito nets, insecticide sprays, or the regular repair of screens showed no statistically significant associations with disease occurrence ( Table 8 ). Table 8. Association between the mosquito borne disease prevalence and preventive measures taken inside the house (N = 95). Variable Presence of mosquito-borne disease OR (95% CI) p Value Yes (%) n = 28 No (%) n = 67 Repair or check holes in window screens or mosquito nets Yes No 9 (32.1) 19 (67.8) 32 (47.7) 35 (52.2) 0.5 (0.2-1.2) 0.483 Use of mosquito repellents or coils Yes No 20 (71.4) 8 (28.5) 27 (40.3) 48 (59.7) 3.7 (1.4-9.6) 0.024 # Use of electric mosquito bats or insecticide sprays Often Rarely 11 (39.2) 17 (60.7) 22 (32.8) 45 (67.1) 1.3 (0.5-3.3) >0.999 Usage of Mosquito nets at night Yes No 14 (50.0) 14 (50.0) 37 (55.2) 30 (44.7) 0.8 (0.3-1.9) >0.999 # Statistically significant (Holm-adjusted p ≤ 0.05). Discussion The present study, which was conducted within the Mangalore City Corporation, provides valuable insights into the determinants of mosquito population density and community responses in the urban setting of coastal Karnataka. These findings affirm that urban mosquito breeding and disease transmission are influenced by a complex interplay of environmental, behavioral, and infrastructural factors. In the present study, a majority (95%) had some level of education and were above 45 years of age, with a predominance of female respondents, and 61% reported nearby healthcare facilities within 2 km, indicating relatively good access to healthcare in the study area. These findings match those of prior studies highlighting that educational level and proximity to health services may influence awareness and preventive behaviors related to vector-borne diseases, although not necessarily with consistent environmental control practices. 27 , 28 More than two-fifths of the respondents perceived an increase in mosquito breeding sites within the last year and 60% of participants reported experiencing moderate to severe mosquito nuisance in their locality over the past year, which was consistent with urbanization-related ecological changes in the study setting. This aligns with the national trends of urban vector expansion reported in the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP) surveillance data. 34 Notably, 71.5% of the participants indicated that evenings were the peak time for mosquito activity, and 30.5% reported that mosquito bites disrupted their sleep, which is consistent with Aedes aegypti’s day-biting habits, whereas Anopheline mosquitoes are known for nocturnal activity, which suggests the presence of mixed mosquito species in the study area. 22 Additionally, 67.4% of the participants described a moderate to severe presence of mosquitoes indoors, whereas 87.3% reported similar conditions outdoors. This finding is comparable to data from Kampango et al., who reported an average of 85.93% An. gambiae s.l. bites per night, with 66% occurring indoors and 34% outdoors, peaking between 22:00 and 03:00 in a rural community in Chókwè District, southern Mozambique. 35 In terms of environmental factors, 69.4% of the participants reported high mosquito activity during the rainy season, which corresponds to the behavioral patterns of Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus , both of which are well adapted to peridomestic environments. 1 This aligns with a cross-sectional study by Mahgoub et al. in Barakat and El-Kareiba, Sudan, which reported a high number of positive habitats during the rainy season, whereas the lowest numbers were reported during the hot season followed by the dry season, corroborating findings that climate and seasonal variation significantly influence mosquito density and disease transmission. 26 , 36 The primary breeding sites identified in our study included water stagnation (74.7%), dense vegetation (54.7%), and nearby water bodies (20%), which is consistent with previous studies demonstrating the importance of stagnant water and vegetation in vector proliferation. 21 – 23 Urban infrastructure projects, especially when poorly managed, contribute to temporary water stagnation, while dense vegetation offers resting sites and microclimatic conditions favourable to adult mosquitoes. After applying Holm’s correction for the familywise error rate (FWER), the logistic regression model revealed no significant associations between mosquito density and environmental factors such as water stagnation (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.7, p value – 0.198), construction sites (OR 3.5, 95% CI: 1.2, 10.0, p value – 0.098), nearby water bodies (OR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.4, 3.3, p value – 0.882), dense vegetation (OR 2.1, 95% CI: 0.9, 4.6, p value – 0.425), garbage dumping (OR 1.6, 95% CI: 0.5, 5.3, p value – 0.878), type of water storage (OR 2.1, 95% CI: 0.6, 7.3, p value – 0.789), or water leaks (OR 3.1, 95% CI: 0.6, 16.1, p value – 0.664). Water stagnation near residential compounds may often result from inadequate municipal drainage systems—a structural determinant beyond individual household control. 25 , 26 Preventive measures among participants were notable, as 91.5% used chemical repellents (insect sprays, vaporizers, and smoke), 81% kept doors and windows closed, 55.7% utilized physical barriers such as mosquito nets or screens, and 15.7% employed other personal measures. These findings are consistent with household-level studies from Mumbai and Sri Lanka, which reported that city respondents, on the other hand, were more likely to use liquid repellents and mosquito sprays, perhaps owing to their ease of use and their immediate, visible effects and commercial availability. 37 , 38 In terms of community cleaning practices, 51.5% of individuals reported cleaning their surroundings daily; additionally, 38.9% checked for water stagnation weekly; in contrast, 84.6% never reported water stagnation to authorities. Unfortunately, 58.9% indicated that municipal cleaning was infrequent in the locality, reflecting gaps in sustained vector management. Notably, 25.2% of the participants regularly checked window screens or mosquito nets for damage, and 50.5% stated that there had been no anti-fogging efforts by local authorities, underscoring the need for better municipal participation and routine surveillance-based larval control, as emphasized in the National Framework for Malaria Elimination 2016–2030. 33 This is in contrast with Mahalakshmi et al.’s findings in northern Gujarat, where 88% cleaned their homes daily, 57.3% cleaned their surroundings weekly, and 82% actively avoided water stagnation. 39 High awareness of mosquito-borne diseases (92.6%), particularly malaria and dengue, is comparable to that reported in other urban studies. However, awareness alone does not guarantee effective preventive action, a well-documented paradox in vector control studies. For example, a community-based survey from Puducherry revealed that although 85.5% of the total respondents had heard of dengue fever and that most of them (82.7%) were aware that it is transmitted through mosquito bites, only 25.1% of participants were aware that the dengue mosquito breeds in clean water-holding containers. 40 Despite these measures, approximately 30% of the participants reported suffering from a mosquito-borne disease in the past year, with dengue accounting for 71.4% of the cases and malaria accounting for (28.6%). Dengue virus consists of four antigenically distinct serotypes (DENV-1 to DENV-4), and the cocirculation of multiple serotypes such as DENV-1, DENV-2, and DENV-3 contributes to complex transmission patterns. Primary infection confers only short-term cross-protection, and secondary infection with a heterologous serotype is well known to carry a markedly increased risk of severe disease due to mechanisms such as antibody-dependent enhancement. Consequently, such clinically overt secondary infections are more likely to be detected and reported, which may explain the higher proportion of dengue cases observed in the study setting. 41 Common symptoms included fever (96.4%), headache (78.5%), joint pain (60.7%), and muscle pain (46.4%), which aligns with the WHO’s case definition for dengue and aligns with findings from a study conducted by Kumar et al. in a tertiary hospital in the Udupi district, which indicated that 83.9% of cases were due to dengue fever, presenting symptoms such as fever (99.1%), myalgia (64.6%), vomiting (47.6%), headache (47.6%), abdominal pain (37.5%), and breathlessness (17.8%). 9 , 42 In this study, 92.3% of the participants reported experiencing complications post recovery, suggesting prolonged morbidity, an often underrecognized component of dengue disease burden. This contrasts with a study in Vietnam by Tam et al., who reported that 12.5% of participants experienced alopecia, 11.1% had blurred vision, 9.5% faced concentration difficulties, and 8.5% suffered from fatigue following dengue infection. 43 The present study revealed that 82.1% of the population perceives water stagnation as a significant factor in mosquito proliferation, indicating that it is a major factor in the prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases. Construction sites, water bodies, dense vegetation, and water storage in open containers were identified as significant determinants. Additionally, 17.8% of individuals perceive water leakage from tanks and taps as key determinants, indicating that water leakage from household stores is a significant factor in the prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases. Overall, these factors contribute to the prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases. Interestingly, the use of mosquito repellents or coils was significantly associated with a greater incidence of mosquito-borne diseases (OR 3.7, 95% CI: 1.4, 9.6, p = 0.024) suggesting a reactive response: — households in high-risk areas or with prior illness episodes are more likely to adopt repellents. This phenomenon has been described in behavioral epidemiology as the “reverse causation effect”. 44 This finding also suggests possible improper usage or overreliance on repellents without addressing environmental breeding sites. Similar gaps between knowledge and action have been reported in prior studies. 27 Strengths The key strength of this study is its systematic, community-based sampling across selected wards using a random start method for street selection and a structured household sampling approach. Standardized data collection, operational definitions, and a pilot-tested data collection tool enhance reliability. The study also examined both environmental and behavioral determinants, allowing for a more holistic assessment. Limitations As a cross-sectional study, temporal causality between determinants and mosquito density could not be established. Entomological indices (e.g., the Breteau or House index) were not measured, limiting direct quantification of vector density. Self-reported disease history may be subject to recall bias, although the one-year recall period likely limits its magnitude. This study was conducted during the late monsoon–transition period in Mangalore, when the number of breeding sites typically begins to decline, which may influence the observed mosquito density compared with that in the peak monsoon months. This study did not assess local insecticide resistance patterns, which is relevant given the presence of Anopheles stephensi in the region. Additionally, behavioural practices and environmental exposures were based on self-reports and may be influenced by social desirability or misclassification, although the structured questionnaire and short recall frames were designed to minimize such biases. Nonetheless, this study provides strong evidence linking environmental conditions and behavioral factors to perceived mosquito proliferation, offering valuable insights for targeted urban vector-control strategies. Conclusion In conclusion, this study provides an integrated approach by identifying key environmental determinants of mosquito presence while simultaneously evaluating community preventive measures, perceptions and self-reported mosquito-borne disease burden, offering context specific insights from Mangalore that complement previous studies in other settings. While knowledge and attitudes in the community were generally adequate, their association with actual preventive practices was modest, indicating a persistent gap between awareness and action. However, proper intervention by local authority is necessary to combat the main environmental factors responsible for mosquito breeding. This highlights the gaps found in our study, where despite widespread awareness of mosquito-borne diseases, respondents acknowledged limited knowledge of effective preventive measures and exhibited suboptimal preventive practices. Hence, in addition to awareness, there is a dire need to provide the right personnel and services to combat mosquito-borne diseases. Recommendation Awareness and campaigns Nearly one hundred percent of the participants believed that spreading awareness of mosquito-borne diseases and mosquito control measures would help reduce the incidence of mosquito borne diseases in the community. This can be accomplished through various means, such as public service announcements, social media campaigns, and community outreach programs. Elimination of water stagnation Local authorities and communities must proactively repair damaged roads, cover open drains, strengthen vector control at construction sites, ensure proper waste disposal to eliminate standing water, prevent mosquito breeding, and reduce the risk of vector-borne diseases. Clearing up of dense vegetation Dense vegetation was identified as a significant determinant of mosquito presence in household neighborhoods. Local authorities should ensure regular clearing of vegetation and maintenance of cleanliness in these areas. Further research Further research to identify the factors leading to an increase in the mosquito population and community and local government measures can help identify additional intervention strategies. This can involve qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews, field research, or focus groups, to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying issue. Policy implications This study underscores the need for stronger municipal policies focused on eliminating water stagnation, regulating construction sites, and maintaining vegetation to address key environmental drivers of mosquito proliferation. Sustained community-level awareness campaigns are essential to improve preventive practices and encourage early health-seeking behavior. Additionally, regular operational research and entomological surveillance should be integrated into local vector control programs to ensure data-driven, targeted interventions. Ethical approval The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore with No: IEC KMC MLR 09/2024/587, followed by permission from the Head of the Institute. The written consent was taken on an ‘Informed consent form’ which was provided to the participants ≥18 years of age for signature, and the participants <18 years of age were excluded from the study. All participants had the right to withdraw at any stage of the study, and all incomplete responses were considered withdrawn and excluded from the analysis. Data availability Underlying data The data set used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the online repository (figshare) DOI- https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29144975 45 (Tables 1–8). Extended data The data include participant information sheet, Informed consent form and questionnaire are available from the online repository (figshare) DOI- https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29144990 . 46 Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 Public domain dedication). References 1. WHO: Global vector control response 2017–2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. 2. World Health Organization: Vector-borne diseases: key facts [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024 [cited 2025 Nov 10]. Reference Source 3. Venkatesan P: The 2023 WHO World malaria report. Lancet Microbe. 2024 Mar 1; 5 (3): e214. Publisher Full Text 4. World Health Organization: World Malaria Report 2023. Geneva: WHO; 2023. 5. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia: Malaria Situation in the South-East Asia Region 2023. New Delhi: WHO-SEARO; 2023. 6. National Center for Vector Borne Disease Control: Operational guidelines for hospitals to control Aedes breeding. New Delhi: National Center for Vector Borne Diseases Control; 2022. Reference Source 7. Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, et al. : The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013; 496 (7446): 504–507. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 8. Brady OJ, Gething PW, Bhatt S, et al. : Refining the global spatial limits of dengue virus transmission by evidence-based consensus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012; 6 (8): e1760. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. World Health Organization: Dengue and severe dengue: Key facts. Geneva: WHO; 2024. Reference Source 10. Global dengue surveillance: World Health Organization. [January 02, 2025]. Reference Source 11. Paulson W, Kodali NK, Balasubramani K, et al. : Social and housing indicators of dengue and chikungunya in Indian adults aged 45 and above: Analysis of a nationally representative survey (2017-18). Arch. Public Health. 2022; 80 : 125. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 12. Chavasse D: Know your enemy: Some facts about the natural history of Malawi’s Anopheles mosquitoes and implications for malaria control. Malawi Med. J. 2002 Apr 1; 14 (1): 7–8. PubMed Abstract 13. Kumar KR, Gururaj G: Community Perception Regarding Mosquito-borne Diseases in Karnataka State, India. 14. Prasad KI, Govindarajan R, Sreepada KS: Seasonal Diversity of mosquito species in Dakshina Kannada district, Karnataka, India. Journal of Vector Borne Diseases. 2021 Apr 1; 58 (2): 119–125. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 15. Dayanand KK, Punnath K, Chandrashekar V, et al. : Malaria prevalence in Mangaluru city area in the southwestern coastal region of India. Malar. J. 2017 Dec; 16 : 1. Publisher Full Text 16. Santos-Vega M, Martinez PP, Vaishnav KG, et al. :The neglected role of relative humidity in the interannual variability of urban malaria in Indian cities. Nat. Commun. 2022; 13 : 533. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 17. Ghosh SK, Manju R: Malaria elimination in India—The way forward. J. Vector Borne Dis. 2019; 56 (1): 32–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 18. WHO: Anopheles stephensi: global threat in urban malaria transmission. Geneva: WHO; 2023. 19. Ghosh SK, Tiwari S, Raghavendra K, et al. : Observations on sporozoite detection in naturally infected sibling species of the Anopheles culicifacies complex and variant of Anopheles stephensi in India. J. Biosci. 2008 Sep; 33 (3): 333–336. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 20. Russell TL, Lwetoijera DW, Maliti D, et al. : Impact of promoting longer-lasting insecticide treatment of bed nets upon malaria transmission in a rural Tanzanian setting with pre-existing high coverage of untreated nets. Malar. J. 2010 Jun 28; 9 (1): 187. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 21. Wilke AB, Vasquez C, Carvajal A, et al. : Proliferation of Aedes aegypti in urban environments mediated by the availability of key aquatic habitats. Sci. Rep. 2020 Jul 31; 10 (1): 12925. 22. Prashanthi D, Ranganathan CR, Balasubramanian S: Socio-demographic determinants of Malaria in highly infected rural areas: regional influential assessment using GIS. GIS for Health and the Environment: Development in the Asia-Pacific Region With 110 Figures.2007; 195–205. 23. Yadav K, Dhiman S, Rabha B, et al. : Socio-economic determinants for malaria transmission risk in an endemic primary health centre in Assam, India. Infect. Dis. Poverty. 2014 Dec; 3 : 1–8. Publisher Full Text 24. Telle O, Vaguet A, Yadav NK, et al. : The spread of dengue in an endemic urban milieu–the case of Delhi, India. PloS one. 2016 Jan 25; 11 (1): e0146539. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 25. Srividya A, Subramanian S, Sadanandane C, et al. : Determinants of transmission hotspots and filarial infection in households after eight rounds of mass drug administration in India. Trop. Med. Int. Health. 2018 Nov; 23 (11): 1251–1258. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 26. Almeida LS, Cota AL, Rodrigues DF: Sanitation, Arboviruses, and Environmental Determinants of Disease: impacts on urban health. Ciencia & saude coletiva. 2020 Sep 28; 25 : 3857–3868. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 27. Garbin CA, Teruel GP, Saliba TA, et al. : Knowledge and attitude of women with high-risk pregnancy about the Zika virus transmission. Ciênc. Saúde Colet. 2021 Jan 25; 26 : 233–240. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 28. Madeira NG, Macharelli CA, Pedras JF, et al. : Education in primary school as a strategy to control dengue: An evaluation in São Paulo State, Brazil. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2002; 35 : 221–226. Publisher Full Text 29. Krieger N:Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: an ecosocial perspective. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2001; 30 (4): 668–677. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 30. Kushalan S, Kashyap A, Morajkar S, et al. : Geospatial Distribution of Fluoride and Iron in Natural Water Sources in Mangalore City. Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU. 2023 Oct; 13 (04): 525–534. Publisher Full Text 31. Mangalore Municipal Corporation City population census 2011-2025 [Internet]. Census2011.co.in. [cited 2025 Nov 14]. Reference Source 32. Maskeri R, Jain A, Ullal S, et al. : Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) Regarding Malaria and its Prevention among Patients with Suspected Malaria in Mangaluru. Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev. 2018 Sep 1; 9 (9): 271–276. Publisher Full Text 33. NVBDCP: National Framework for Malaria Elimination in India 2016–2030. Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 2016. 34. NVBDCP: Guidelines for Integrated Vector Management in India. DGHS; 2020. 35. Kampango A, Pinto J, Abílio AP, et al. : Characterisation of human exposure to nocturnal biting by malaria and arbovirus vectors in a rural community in Chókwè district, southern Mozambique. Wellcome Open Research. 2023; 8 : 193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 36. Mahgoub MM, Kweka EJ, Himeidan YE: Characterisation of larval habitats, species composition and factors associated with the seasonal abundance of mosquito fauna in Gezira, Sudan. Infect. Dis. Poverty. 2017 Dec; 6 : 1. Publisher Full Text 37. Dhawan G, Joseph N, Pekow PS, et al. : Malaria-related knowledge and prevention practices in four neighbourhoods in and around Mumbai, India: a cross-sectional study. Malar. J. 2014 Aug 7; 13 (1): 303. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 38. Sānu MN, Fernando SD, De Silva BN: Use of Household Insecticides against Mosquitoes in Dengue-Endemic Areas in Sri Lanka. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2024 Jan 23; 110 (3): 549–556. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 39. Mahalakshmi B, Sivasubramanian N, Vaghela P, et al. : Awareness on mosquito borne diseases among urban & rural population in Northern Gujarat. Bioinformation. 2022; 18 (7): 640–644. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 40. Jeelani S, Sabesan S, Subramanian S: Community knowledge, awareness and preventive practices regarding dengue fever in Puducherry – South India. Public Health. 2015 Jun; 129 (6): 790–796. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 41. Rothman AL: Immunity to dengue virus: a tale of original antigenic sin and tropical cytokine storms. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2011; 11 (8): 532–543. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 42. Kumar A, Rao CR, Pandit V, et al. : Clinical manifestations and trend of dengue cases admitted in a tertiary care hospital, Udupi district, Karnataka. Indian J. Community Med. 2010 Jul 1; 35 (3): 386–390. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 43. Tam DT, Clapham H, Giger E, et al. : Burden of postinfectious symptoms after acute dengue, Vietnam. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2023 Jan; 29 (1): 160–163. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 44. Rosenstock IM: The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Educ. Monogr. 1974; 2 (4): 354–386. Publisher Full Text 45. Dr Surendran J : VBD F1000Research data sheet. Dataset. figshare. 2025. Publisher Full Text 46. Dr Surendran J : EXTENDED DATA VBD F1000RESEARCH. Dataset. figshare. 2025. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 07 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 2 Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India Rekha T Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation Jithin Surendran Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Sreedevi SR Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources Aishwariya Narasimhan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Software Nihal R Shankar Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Arhan Vilas K Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Gayana Shree A N Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Hari Priya Muppala Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Faiz Abdulaziz Roles: Data Curation, Investigation Rohan HS Roles: Data Curation, Investigation Ameya Singh Roles: Data Curation, Investigation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (4) version 4 Revised Published: 18 Dec 2025, 14:661 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164704.4 version 3 Revised Published: 26 Nov 2025, 14:661 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164704.3 version 2 Revised Published: 01 Sep 2025, 14:661 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164704.2 version 1 Published: 07 Jul 2025, 14:661 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164704.1 Copyright © 2025 T R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article T R, Surendran J, SR S et al. Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.164704.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 18 Dec 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rahim A. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193548.r442634 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4#referee-response-442634 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Jan 2026 Asma Rahim , Government Medical College, Kozhikode, India Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193548.r442634 The authors have addressed the points for revision raised ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors have addressed the points for revision raised by me satisfactorily. This article is fit for indexing. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Public health , Community Rheumatology, Health professions education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rahim A. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193548.r442634 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4#referee-response-442634 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Adesoye OA. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193548.r443038 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4#referee-response-443038 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Jan 2026 Oluwaseun Adegbola Adesoye , University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193548.r443038 The work is clearly stated and well presented. However, some references cited are too old. For instance, reference 22 and 27 is too old since the work examines recent happening that aids mosquito proliferation. Also, some major ... Continue reading READ ALL The work is clearly stated and well presented. However, some references cited are too old. For instance, reference 22 and 27 is too old since the work examines recent happening that aids mosquito proliferation. Also, some major statistical interpretations are incorrect. For instance, there were no statistical association according to your multivariable analysis, yet, your paper keep saying construction sites and water stagnation are strong determinant. This has be modified. Further more, use of P at 0.02 threshold has to be justified with standard epidemiological work. Most importantly, since no entomological indices such as larval count, adult house index was measure, the title and the conclusion/recommendation exceed strength of evidence provided. Thus, recommendation should be Precautionary and Perception0informed and not evidence. Also, 'Mosquito density' used in title, tables etc could be modified into something like 'Perceived mosquito density' since this is not measured Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Applied Entomology, Medical and Molecular Entomology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Adesoye OA. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193548.r443038 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4#referee-response-443038 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 26 Nov 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Khan S. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191677.r436213 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v3#referee-response-436213 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Dec 2025 Siraj Khan , ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Lahowal, India Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191677.r436213 The authors have thoroughly addressed all the comments raised in the initial review, providing clear revisions and satisfactory clarifications wherever required. The manuscript has improved substantially in terms of clarity, methodological presentation, and overall scientific quality. All major and minor ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors have thoroughly addressed all the comments raised in the initial review, providing clear revisions and satisfactory clarifications wherever required. The manuscript has improved substantially in terms of clarity, methodological presentation, and overall scientific quality. All major and minor concerns have been resolved, and no further revisions are necessary at this stage. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for indexing. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Medical Entomology, Arbovirology, Rickettsial Diseases, Public health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Khan S. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191677.r436213 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v3#referee-response-436213 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rahim A. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191677.r436695 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v3#referee-response-436695 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 11 Dec 2025 Asma Rahim , Government Medical College, Kozhikode, India Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191677.r436695 Introduction — add a paragraph on coastal urban vector ecology and novelty of Mangalore Add a conceptual framework ( WHO’s integrated vector management or ecosocial framework) ... Continue reading READ ALL Introduction — add a paragraph on coastal urban vector ecology and novelty of Mangalore Add a conceptual framework ( WHO’s integrated vector management or ecosocial framework) Split the research questions into Primary and secondary . Objectives (rewrite, split primary/secondary).Eg:Primary objective • To identify environmental and household determinants associated with increased mosquito presence in the urban field practice area of Mangalore. Secondary objectives • To describe household-level preventive practices and community perceptions towards mosquito-borne diseases. • To estimate the prevalence of self-reported mosquito-borne disease in the last 12 months and assess associations with environmental and behavioral factors after adjustment. Methods — Questionnaire validation (insert a concise methods paragraph).add content validity, pilot test, and Cronbach’s alpha for each construct. Methods — Operational definitions (insert a short table or list), Mosquito presence (household level, Nuisance score, Self-reported mosquito-borne disease, Water stagnation. Eg . Visible standing water that persisted for >48 hours after rain or due to blocked drains in the household compound or immediate neighbourhood. Sampling : clarify purposive ward selection, add random start for street sampling, acknowledge exclusion of apartments. Analysis: Add multivariable logistic regression. Results: rewrite causal statements, clean tables, add CIs and adjusted ORs. Tables — formatting checklist Each table: give a clear title, state N for the analysis, and column denominators. For categorical comparisons, show counts and percentages: “n (%)”. For key associations, present crude OR (95% CI) and adjusted OR (95% CI) in a single table. Ensure p-values match the test used and report exact values (not only “0.00” or “<0.05”). Fix Table numbering and remove “continued” fragments by merging or reformatting long tables. 11. Discussion: add explanation of key findings, strengths and limitations, policy implications. 12. Limitations: Add an explicit paragraph about seasonality, selection bias, and self-reporting. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Public health , Community Rheumatology, Health professions education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rahim A. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191677.r436695 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v3#referee-response-436695 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 09 Jan 2026 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN , Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 09 Jan 2026 Author Response 1. Introduction — Addition on coastal urban vector ecology and relevance to Mangalore Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have incorporated a dedicated paragraph describing coastal urban ... Continue reading 1. Introduction — Addition on coastal urban vector ecology and relevance to Mangalore Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have incorporated a dedicated paragraph describing coastal urban vector ecology, highlighting the influence of relative humidity and artificial breeding habitats on Anopheles stephensi proliferation, with contextual relevance to Mangalore’s humid coastal environment. 2. Conceptual framework —Addition of Eco-social framework Response: As advised, we have added a section on the eco-social framework to explain the multilevel pathways linking environmental, structural, and behavioural factors to vector proliferation In the last paragraph of introduction. 3. Research questions — Split into primary and secondary Response: The research questions have now been clearly divided into primary and secondary categories. 4. Objectives — Rewritten and split into primary and secondary Response: We have revised the objectives section to explicitly distinguish: Primary objective: Identifying environmental and household determinants associated with mosquito presence. Secondary objectives: Describing preventive practices, community perceptions, and estimating the prevalence of self-reported mosquito-borne diseases with adjusted associations. 5. Methods — Questionnaire validation (content validity, pilot testing, reliability) Response: We have added a concise paragraph on questionnaire validation. This includes details on expert content validation, pilot testing among 20 households and subsequent revisions, and Cronbach’s alpha (≥0.7) for internal consistency. This meets methodological rigor expected for community-based KAP and environmental assessment tools. 6. Methods — Operational definitions Response: definitions for all key variables—mosquito presence, nuisance score, self-reported mosquito-borne disease, and water stagnation—have been added. These definitions were included as a structured text for clarity and reproducibility. 7. Sampling — Clarified purposive ward selection, random start, and apartment exclusion Response: The sampling description was expanded to clarify purposive selection of wards, the use of a random start for street sampling, selection of every 3rd household, and acknowledgement of exclusion of apartment complexes due to restricted access. 8. Analysis — Addition of multivariable logistic regression Response: As suggested, we have added multivariable logistic regression in the analysis section to identify independent predictors of mosquito presence, preventive behaviours, and mosquito-borne disease. 9. Results — Revised causal wording, cleaned tables, added CIs and adjusted ORs Response: All causal statements have been revised to ensure appropriate observational language. Tables have been reformatted to include n (%), 95% CIs, and both crude and adjusted ORs in a unified format. Formatting inconsistencies have been corrected, and “continued” fragments removed. 10. Tables — Formatting fixes applied Response: We thank the reviewer for the detailed checklist. Each table now includes: A clear title and sample size, Column denominators, n (%) for categorical variables, crude and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs, correct p-values with appropriate reporting, corrected numbering and removal of unnecessary fragments. 11. Discussion — Added strengths, limitations, and policy implications Response: Strengths—such as systematic sampling, validated tools, and multidimensional assessment—are now clearly articulated. Policy implications relevant to NVBDCP and municipal vector control have also been added. 12. Limitations — Added paragraph on seasonality, selection bias, and self-report Response: We have added an explicit limitations paragraph acknowledging: Timing of data collection (post-monsoon transitional period), potential selection bias due to exclusion of apartments (In methodology), social desirability and recall bias in self-reported behaviours and illness. 1. Introduction — Addition on coastal urban vector ecology and relevance to Mangalore Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have incorporated a dedicated paragraph describing coastal urban vector ecology, highlighting the influence of relative humidity and artificial breeding habitats on Anopheles stephensi proliferation, with contextual relevance to Mangalore’s humid coastal environment. 2. Conceptual framework —Addition of Eco-social framework Response: As advised, we have added a section on the eco-social framework to explain the multilevel pathways linking environmental, structural, and behavioural factors to vector proliferation In the last paragraph of introduction. 3. Research questions — Split into primary and secondary Response: The research questions have now been clearly divided into primary and secondary categories. 4. Objectives — Rewritten and split into primary and secondary Response: We have revised the objectives section to explicitly distinguish: Primary objective: Identifying environmental and household determinants associated with mosquito presence. Secondary objectives: Describing preventive practices, community perceptions, and estimating the prevalence of self-reported mosquito-borne diseases with adjusted associations. 5. Methods — Questionnaire validation (content validity, pilot testing, reliability) Response: We have added a concise paragraph on questionnaire validation. This includes details on expert content validation, pilot testing among 20 households and subsequent revisions, and Cronbach’s alpha (≥0.7) for internal consistency. This meets methodological rigor expected for community-based KAP and environmental assessment tools. 6. Methods — Operational definitions Response: definitions for all key variables—mosquito presence, nuisance score, self-reported mosquito-borne disease, and water stagnation—have been added. These definitions were included as a structured text for clarity and reproducibility. 7. Sampling — Clarified purposive ward selection, random start, and apartment exclusion Response: The sampling description was expanded to clarify purposive selection of wards, the use of a random start for street sampling, selection of every 3rd household, and acknowledgement of exclusion of apartment complexes due to restricted access. 8. Analysis — Addition of multivariable logistic regression Response: As suggested, we have added multivariable logistic regression in the analysis section to identify independent predictors of mosquito presence, preventive behaviours, and mosquito-borne disease. 9. Results — Revised causal wording, cleaned tables, added CIs and adjusted ORs Response: All causal statements have been revised to ensure appropriate observational language. Tables have been reformatted to include n (%), 95% CIs, and both crude and adjusted ORs in a unified format. Formatting inconsistencies have been corrected, and “continued” fragments removed. 10. Tables — Formatting fixes applied Response: We thank the reviewer for the detailed checklist. Each table now includes: A clear title and sample size, Column denominators, n (%) for categorical variables, crude and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs, correct p-values with appropriate reporting, corrected numbering and removal of unnecessary fragments. 11. Discussion — Added strengths, limitations, and policy implications Response: Strengths—such as systematic sampling, validated tools, and multidimensional assessment—are now clearly articulated. Policy implications relevant to NVBDCP and municipal vector control have also been added. 12. Limitations — Added paragraph on seasonality, selection bias, and self-report Response: We have added an explicit limitations paragraph acknowledging: Timing of data collection (post-monsoon transitional period), potential selection bias due to exclusion of apartments (In methodology), social desirability and recall bias in self-reported behaviours and illness. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 09 Jan 2026 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN , Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 09 Jan 2026 Author Response 1. Introduction — Addition on coastal urban vector ecology and relevance to Mangalore Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have incorporated a dedicated paragraph describing coastal urban ... Continue reading 1. Introduction — Addition on coastal urban vector ecology and relevance to Mangalore Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have incorporated a dedicated paragraph describing coastal urban vector ecology, highlighting the influence of relative humidity and artificial breeding habitats on Anopheles stephensi proliferation, with contextual relevance to Mangalore’s humid coastal environment. 2. Conceptual framework —Addition of Eco-social framework Response: As advised, we have added a section on the eco-social framework to explain the multilevel pathways linking environmental, structural, and behavioural factors to vector proliferation In the last paragraph of introduction. 3. Research questions — Split into primary and secondary Response: The research questions have now been clearly divided into primary and secondary categories. 4. Objectives — Rewritten and split into primary and secondary Response: We have revised the objectives section to explicitly distinguish: Primary objective: Identifying environmental and household determinants associated with mosquito presence. Secondary objectives: Describing preventive practices, community perceptions, and estimating the prevalence of self-reported mosquito-borne diseases with adjusted associations. 5. Methods — Questionnaire validation (content validity, pilot testing, reliability) Response: We have added a concise paragraph on questionnaire validation. This includes details on expert content validation, pilot testing among 20 households and subsequent revisions, and Cronbach’s alpha (≥0.7) for internal consistency. This meets methodological rigor expected for community-based KAP and environmental assessment tools. 6. Methods — Operational definitions Response: definitions for all key variables—mosquito presence, nuisance score, self-reported mosquito-borne disease, and water stagnation—have been added. These definitions were included as a structured text for clarity and reproducibility. 7. Sampling — Clarified purposive ward selection, random start, and apartment exclusion Response: The sampling description was expanded to clarify purposive selection of wards, the use of a random start for street sampling, selection of every 3rd household, and acknowledgement of exclusion of apartment complexes due to restricted access. 8. Analysis — Addition of multivariable logistic regression Response: As suggested, we have added multivariable logistic regression in the analysis section to identify independent predictors of mosquito presence, preventive behaviours, and mosquito-borne disease. 9. Results — Revised causal wording, cleaned tables, added CIs and adjusted ORs Response: All causal statements have been revised to ensure appropriate observational language. Tables have been reformatted to include n (%), 95% CIs, and both crude and adjusted ORs in a unified format. Formatting inconsistencies have been corrected, and “continued” fragments removed. 10. Tables — Formatting fixes applied Response: We thank the reviewer for the detailed checklist. Each table now includes: A clear title and sample size, Column denominators, n (%) for categorical variables, crude and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs, correct p-values with appropriate reporting, corrected numbering and removal of unnecessary fragments. 11. Discussion — Added strengths, limitations, and policy implications Response: Strengths—such as systematic sampling, validated tools, and multidimensional assessment—are now clearly articulated. Policy implications relevant to NVBDCP and municipal vector control have also been added. 12. Limitations — Added paragraph on seasonality, selection bias, and self-report Response: We have added an explicit limitations paragraph acknowledging: Timing of data collection (post-monsoon transitional period), potential selection bias due to exclusion of apartments (In methodology), social desirability and recall bias in self-reported behaviours and illness. 1. Introduction — Addition on coastal urban vector ecology and relevance to Mangalore Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have incorporated a dedicated paragraph describing coastal urban vector ecology, highlighting the influence of relative humidity and artificial breeding habitats on Anopheles stephensi proliferation, with contextual relevance to Mangalore’s humid coastal environment. 2. Conceptual framework —Addition of Eco-social framework Response: As advised, we have added a section on the eco-social framework to explain the multilevel pathways linking environmental, structural, and behavioural factors to vector proliferation In the last paragraph of introduction. 3. Research questions — Split into primary and secondary Response: The research questions have now been clearly divided into primary and secondary categories. 4. Objectives — Rewritten and split into primary and secondary Response: We have revised the objectives section to explicitly distinguish: Primary objective: Identifying environmental and household determinants associated with mosquito presence. Secondary objectives: Describing preventive practices, community perceptions, and estimating the prevalence of self-reported mosquito-borne diseases with adjusted associations. 5. Methods — Questionnaire validation (content validity, pilot testing, reliability) Response: We have added a concise paragraph on questionnaire validation. This includes details on expert content validation, pilot testing among 20 households and subsequent revisions, and Cronbach’s alpha (≥0.7) for internal consistency. This meets methodological rigor expected for community-based KAP and environmental assessment tools. 6. Methods — Operational definitions Response: definitions for all key variables—mosquito presence, nuisance score, self-reported mosquito-borne disease, and water stagnation—have been added. These definitions were included as a structured text for clarity and reproducibility. 7. Sampling — Clarified purposive ward selection, random start, and apartment exclusion Response: The sampling description was expanded to clarify purposive selection of wards, the use of a random start for street sampling, selection of every 3rd household, and acknowledgement of exclusion of apartment complexes due to restricted access. 8. Analysis — Addition of multivariable logistic regression Response: As suggested, we have added multivariable logistic regression in the analysis section to identify independent predictors of mosquito presence, preventive behaviours, and mosquito-borne disease. 9. Results — Revised causal wording, cleaned tables, added CIs and adjusted ORs Response: All causal statements have been revised to ensure appropriate observational language. Tables have been reformatted to include n (%), 95% CIs, and both crude and adjusted ORs in a unified format. Formatting inconsistencies have been corrected, and “continued” fragments removed. 10. Tables — Formatting fixes applied Response: We thank the reviewer for the detailed checklist. Each table now includes: A clear title and sample size, Column denominators, n (%) for categorical variables, crude and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs, correct p-values with appropriate reporting, corrected numbering and removal of unnecessary fragments. 11. Discussion — Added strengths, limitations, and policy implications Response: Strengths—such as systematic sampling, validated tools, and multidimensional assessment—are now clearly articulated. Policy implications relevant to NVBDCP and municipal vector control have also been added. 12. Limitations — Added paragraph on seasonality, selection bias, and self-report Response: We have added an explicit limitations paragraph acknowledging: Timing of data collection (post-monsoon transitional period), potential selection bias due to exclusion of apartments (In methodology), social desirability and recall bias in self-reported behaviours and illness. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 01 Sep 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Schneider KA. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187323.r416581 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v2#referee-response-416581 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Nov 2025 Kristan Alexander Schneider , University of Applied Sciences Mittweida, Mittweida, Germany Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187323.r416581 I have reservations against the current version of the article, regarding its format, methodology and content, which I want to lay out below. Major comments Format of the article: The result section of ... Continue reading READ ALL I have reservations against the current version of the article, regarding its format, methodology and content, which I want to lay out below. Major comments Format of the article: The result section of the article consists only of tables, without any text describing and explaining the results. The description of the results is mixed into the discussion section. The discussion lacks to critically reflect on limitations, but provides background information, which is better suite for the introduction. Abstract: Results: Sometimes percentages are reported as decimal numbers, sometimes spelled out as words. This inconsistency should be avoided, and ideally confidence intervals should be reported too (e.g. exact binomial confidence intervals). When analyzing outcomes of individual questions in the questionnaire, adjustments for multiple testing (e.g. Holm’s correction for FWER) should be applied. To me, it seems neither “water stagnation” nor “construction activity” would have a significant association with mosquito abundance once a correction for multiple testing is applied. Conclusions: The conclusions do not reflect the results. If 92% of respondents are aware of mosquito-borne diseases, which is higher than the 91.5% of households that use chemical mosquito prevention, it is hardly justified to claim that there is “a gap in community knowledge and perception of mosquito-borne diseases, even though people are aware of basic precautions,…”. The conclusions should be aligned with the actual findings. Introduction: “7,00,000 deaths” should presumably read “700,000 deaths”. This number needs to be commented. Malaria causes 600,000 to 700,000 deaths per year, whereas other mosquito-borne diseases cause tens of thousands. These numbers should be broken down in more detail. The statement “India accounts for 79% of the global malaria burden” cannot be true since 94% of cases and 95% of deaths occur in sub-Sahara Africa. What is true is that India accounts for the majority (around 52%) of malaria cases outside Africa. Furthermore, the information on Anopheles should be formulated more carefully. Not all Anopheles species breed in clean water. The urban vector Anopheles stephensi , which becomes invasive in many countries, is known to bead also in unclean water ( A. stephensi is prevalent in the study area, cf. Ghosh et al. 2008; this should be mentioned). Moreover, several Anopheles species were reported to shift towards more diurnal biting behavior after being targeted by IRS and after deployment of LLITNs. I suggest including a map of the study side alongside some of the key climatic characteristics etc. of the region. The last sentence of the introduction should be avoided. Objectives: Whole sentences should be used in this section. Methodology: I do not understand the sample size calculation. It resembles a bit Cochran’s formula but, it has some errors. Before a sample size can be determined, there must be a clear analysis plan. Based on these specifics, the sample size has to be determined. The current formula has some problems. If it is Cochran’s formula Z a 2 , should be Z 2 , with Z =1.96 being the 97.5% quantile of the standard normal distribution rather than the 95% confidence interval. Second, d2 should be d 2 , with d being the margin of error, rather than the relative precision (whatever this should be). In any case it is unclear how the authors arrive at a sample size of N=95 . With Cochran’s formula and 20% non-responders, I calculated N=68 . In the second paragraph on page 6 the methodology of the questionnaire cannot be assessed. The sentence “A pretested internally validated physical questionnaire designed after extensive literature review…” dose not sufficiently describe the methodology. A description how the literature research was performed is necessary. It should also explain in detail how the questionnaire was validated and by whom. It should be more prominently stated that the is provided as supplement. I am also wondering whether the questionnaire asked about insecticide resistance. This is an issue in the area given that A. stephensi is prevalent there. Results: The result section lacks any main text. Rather tables are listed without any description. In general, it is good practice to provide confidence intervals alongside the frequency estimates. Regarding the information in Table 1, 5.2% of the participants are illiterate. I am wondering how these participants completed the questionnaire. This needs to be described in the methods. I find the questions and answers in Table 2 rather unfortunate. Presumable because not the actual question is provided. For instance, “Presence of mosquitoes inside the house” sounds like a dichotomous question to me, or like a quantitative question, however the answers “Mild”, and “Moderate to Severe” are rather qualitative. It is also unclear from the questionnaire what exactly was reported and which questions and how they were aggregated. “Time of the day when mosquitoes mostly bite” has answers “Morning”, “Evening”, and “Night”. These answers are unfortunate, since there is no clear-cut definition for “Morning”, “Evening”, and “Night”. To some 10pm might be evening, to others it would be night. Moreover, this might not have anything to do with the actual biting behavior, because it is not uncommon to not notice when mosquitoes are biting. If you wake up with a couple of mosquito bites, it is unclear when they bite. I also found the possible answers “Mild” and “Moderate to Severe” to the question “Overall mosquito nuisance in locality compared to past one year” not ideal. What is if mosquito nuisance is significantly reduced in comparison to the previous years. “Mild” is not a good qualitative summary of significantly less. In Table 7, I am wondering about the mosquito born diseases. Apparently, of the 28 persons, who suffered from a mosquito borne disease, 71.4% had dengue. While dengue incidence is 2.5 times higher than malaria in the region, this seems to fit in the picture. However, in this context it is important to note that several serotypes circulate in this area (DENV-2, DENV-3, and also DENV-1). Since one acquires lasting immunity against the first infecting serotype (which typically cause mild infections with unspecific symptoms) and temporal immunity against the others, one can make the implication that the persons with a dengue infection had a severe infection. Otherwise, dengue would not be diagnosed. It is important to discuss these facts. Discussion: The first two lines make little sense given the study design. The study was conducted in an urban setting close to the Medical College. Hence, it is not surprising that study participants report good access to healthcare. Moreover, the access to healthcare is less important than the ability to properly diagnose vector-borne diseases. Furthermore, the study had a focus on mosquitoes, not on healthcare access. The rest of the first paragraph also makes no sense. The study in Florida is concerned with a totally different mosquito population. I do not see the connection between residents in Florida feeling bothered by mosquitoes and a population in India. The compassion between India and Mozambique in the second paragraph also is of limited relevance. Also, the relevance of the fourth and fifth paragraph is unclear to me. The third paragraph states that 50% of the mosquitoes were often found inside the house. I cannot find this result in any of the Tables. The first paragraph on page 13 should discuss dengue in more detail. Conclusions: It is stated that the study adopts a “novel,” integrated approach. To me, it is unclear what is novel about a questionnaire? The term “correlation” is not correctly used. Correlations between metric (or ordinal) variables. Otherwise, it is an association. In general, I miss a clear discussion on the limitations of the study. I also think spatial repellants or larvicides should be discussed somewhere in the text. Minor comments Abstract: I suggest using whole sentences under the heading “Objectives”. Be specific about the study area and explain what the “Department of Community Medicine” is. Results: “… as mosquito preventive measure.” -> “… for mosquito prevention.” Introduction: When you mention dengue and chikungunya, you might also mention West Nile virus. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No References 1. Ghosh S, Tiwari S, Raghavendra K, Sathyanarayan T, et al.: Observations on sporozoite detection in naturally infected sibling species of the Anopheles culicifacies complex and variant of Anopheles stephensi in India. Journal of Biosciences . 2008; 33 (3): 333-336 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Global health, mathematical modeling, biostatistics, bioinformatics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Schneider KA. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187323.r416581 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v2#referee-response-416581 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 26 Nov 2025 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN , Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 26 Nov 2025 Author Response We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s comprehensive and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed each point, and the manuscript has improved substantially as a result. Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments ... Continue reading We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s comprehensive and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed each point, and the manuscript has improved substantially as a result. Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments Major Comments 1. Format of the article (Results section & Discussion) Response: A full narrative description has now been incorporated into the Results section. This text had been included in the earlier revised version of the manuscript but was unfortunately not visible to the reviewer during the previous round of assessment. All misplaced results were removed from the Discussion and relocated appropriately. Background content has been shifted to the Introduction. A detailed Limitations subsection has been added. 2. Abstract Response: Percentages are now presented consistently in numerical form. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added. Holm’s correction was applied for multiple comparisons, and results were updated—“water stagnation” and “construction activity” no longer show significant association. The Conclusions section has been fully revised to accurately reflect the study findings without overstating knowledge gaps. 3. Introduction Response: Global mortality figures were corrected and broken down. The statement on India’s contribution to global malaria burden was corrected to indicate its burden outside Africa. 4. Introduction – Anopheles ecology inaccuracies Response: Statements on Anopheles breeding habits were corrected. The role of A. stephensi, its prevalence locally, ability to breed in unclean water, and its shifting biting patterns have been incorporated with updated references (including Ghosh et al. 2008). 5. Study area map suggested Response: A geographical map of the study area has been added as a figure, along with a description of local climate and demographics. 6. Last line of introduction should be avoided Response: The final sentence of the introduction has been deleted. 7. Objectives not in complete sentences Response: Objectives have been rewritten into full, clear sentences. 8. Methodology – unclear sample size calculation Response: The sample size section has been rewritten using correct Cochran’s formula notation (Z² and d²). Assumptions are now clearly stated, and the revised calculation aligns with response rate considerations. 9. Methodology – insufficient description of questionnaire development and validation Response: A detailed explanation of questionnaire development—including literature review, item generation, pretesting, and validation—has been added. Content validation by three public health specialists and two medico-social workers was performed using a four-point Likert scale to derive I-CVI and S-CVI/Ave values. Items with I-CVI < 0.78 were revised or removed, and an S-CVI/Ave ≥ 0.8 confirmed good validity; the full questionnaire is now included as a supplementary file.” 10. Methodology – question about insecticide resistance Response: Questions were not included on insecticide resistance; this has now been explicitly stated under methodological limitations. 11. Results section lacked narrative and CIs Response: Comprehensive narrative text now accompanies each table. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added to all proportion estimates. 12. Table 1 – handling of illiterate participants unclear Response: Methods now explain that trained field investigators were administered the questionnaire orally to illiterate participants. 13. Table 2 – issues with response options, clarity, and interpretability Response: Table 2 has been revised for clarity. Question wording and response scales have been standardized, and explanatory notes added. Ambiguous qualitative categories have been justified in methodology and clarification on the categorization of mosquito biting times has been added directly within the respective table. 14. Table 7 – dengue proportion requires context of serotypes Response: Discussion now includes an explanation of dengue serotype circulation (DENV-1, 2, 3), immunity patterns, and why diagnosed cases likely reflect moderate–severe infections. 15. Discussion – irrelevant comparisons and unclear statements Response: Paragraphs on healthcare access, Florida mosquito study, and Mozambique comparison have been removed and rewritten for relevance respectively. Statements unsupported by results were removed. 16. Missing statement: 50% mosquitoes found inside homes Response: This statement was removed as it was not supported by data. 17. Dengue discussion insufficient Response: The dengue section has been expanded to include serotype diversity, severe disease likelihood, and regional epidemiology. 18. Conclusions – novelty claim incorrect; misuse of “correlation” Response: Claims of novelty have been removed, and the conclusions now focus on the integrated approach used as study objectives. The term “association” is now used appropriately throughout. 19. Missing Limitations & omission of spatial repellents/larvicides Response: A detailed Limitations section has been added, including the absence of entomological indices and resistance testing. Discussion now includes spatial repellents and larvicidal interventions. Minor Comments 1. Objectives should use full sentences Response: Revised accordingly. 2. Abstract: specify study area and “Department of Community Medicine” Response: The abstract now specifies the study area and explains the institutional context. 3. Abstract: “mosquito preventive measure” wording Response: Corrected to “for mosquito prevention.” 4. Introduction: mention West Nile virus Response: West Nile virus has been included in the list of mosquito-borne diseases. We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s comprehensive and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed each point, and the manuscript has improved substantially as a result. Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments Major Comments 1. Format of the article (Results section & Discussion) Response: A full narrative description has now been incorporated into the Results section. This text had been included in the earlier revised version of the manuscript but was unfortunately not visible to the reviewer during the previous round of assessment. All misplaced results were removed from the Discussion and relocated appropriately. Background content has been shifted to the Introduction. A detailed Limitations subsection has been added. 2. Abstract Response: Percentages are now presented consistently in numerical form. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added. Holm’s correction was applied for multiple comparisons, and results were updated—“water stagnation” and “construction activity” no longer show significant association. The Conclusions section has been fully revised to accurately reflect the study findings without overstating knowledge gaps. 3. Introduction Response: Global mortality figures were corrected and broken down. The statement on India’s contribution to global malaria burden was corrected to indicate its burden outside Africa. 4. Introduction – Anopheles ecology inaccuracies Response: Statements on Anopheles breeding habits were corrected. The role of A. stephensi, its prevalence locally, ability to breed in unclean water, and its shifting biting patterns have been incorporated with updated references (including Ghosh et al. 2008). 5. Study area map suggested Response: A geographical map of the study area has been added as a figure, along with a description of local climate and demographics. 6. Last line of introduction should be avoided Response: The final sentence of the introduction has been deleted. 7. Objectives not in complete sentences Response: Objectives have been rewritten into full, clear sentences. 8. Methodology – unclear sample size calculation Response: The sample size section has been rewritten using correct Cochran’s formula notation (Z² and d²). Assumptions are now clearly stated, and the revised calculation aligns with response rate considerations. 9. Methodology – insufficient description of questionnaire development and validation Response: A detailed explanation of questionnaire development—including literature review, item generation, pretesting, and validation—has been added. Content validation by three public health specialists and two medico-social workers was performed using a four-point Likert scale to derive I-CVI and S-CVI/Ave values. Items with I-CVI < 0.78 were revised or removed, and an S-CVI/Ave ≥ 0.8 confirmed good validity; the full questionnaire is now included as a supplementary file.” 10. Methodology – question about insecticide resistance Response: Questions were not included on insecticide resistance; this has now been explicitly stated under methodological limitations. 11. Results section lacked narrative and CIs Response: Comprehensive narrative text now accompanies each table. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added to all proportion estimates. 12. Table 1 – handling of illiterate participants unclear Response: Methods now explain that trained field investigators were administered the questionnaire orally to illiterate participants. 13. Table 2 – issues with response options, clarity, and interpretability Response: Table 2 has been revised for clarity. Question wording and response scales have been standardized, and explanatory notes added. Ambiguous qualitative categories have been justified in methodology and clarification on the categorization of mosquito biting times has been added directly within the respective table. 14. Table 7 – dengue proportion requires context of serotypes Response: Discussion now includes an explanation of dengue serotype circulation (DENV-1, 2, 3), immunity patterns, and why diagnosed cases likely reflect moderate–severe infections. 15. Discussion – irrelevant comparisons and unclear statements Response: Paragraphs on healthcare access, Florida mosquito study, and Mozambique comparison have been removed and rewritten for relevance respectively. Statements unsupported by results were removed. 16. Missing statement: 50% mosquitoes found inside homes Response: This statement was removed as it was not supported by data. 17. Dengue discussion insufficient Response: The dengue section has been expanded to include serotype diversity, severe disease likelihood, and regional epidemiology. 18. Conclusions – novelty claim incorrect; misuse of “correlation” Response: Claims of novelty have been removed, and the conclusions now focus on the integrated approach used as study objectives. The term “association” is now used appropriately throughout. 19. Missing Limitations & omission of spatial repellents/larvicides Response: A detailed Limitations section has been added, including the absence of entomological indices and resistance testing. Discussion now includes spatial repellents and larvicidal interventions. Minor Comments 1. Objectives should use full sentences Response: Revised accordingly. 2. Abstract: specify study area and “Department of Community Medicine” Response: The abstract now specifies the study area and explains the institutional context. 3. Abstract: “mosquito preventive measure” wording Response: Corrected to “for mosquito prevention.” 4. Introduction: mention West Nile virus Response: West Nile virus has been included in the list of mosquito-borne diseases. Competing Interests: Nil Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 26 Nov 2025 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN , Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 26 Nov 2025 Author Response We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s comprehensive and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed each point, and the manuscript has improved substantially as a result. Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments ... Continue reading We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s comprehensive and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed each point, and the manuscript has improved substantially as a result. Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments Major Comments 1. Format of the article (Results section & Discussion) Response: A full narrative description has now been incorporated into the Results section. This text had been included in the earlier revised version of the manuscript but was unfortunately not visible to the reviewer during the previous round of assessment. All misplaced results were removed from the Discussion and relocated appropriately. Background content has been shifted to the Introduction. A detailed Limitations subsection has been added. 2. Abstract Response: Percentages are now presented consistently in numerical form. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added. Holm’s correction was applied for multiple comparisons, and results were updated—“water stagnation” and “construction activity” no longer show significant association. The Conclusions section has been fully revised to accurately reflect the study findings without overstating knowledge gaps. 3. Introduction Response: Global mortality figures were corrected and broken down. The statement on India’s contribution to global malaria burden was corrected to indicate its burden outside Africa. 4. Introduction – Anopheles ecology inaccuracies Response: Statements on Anopheles breeding habits were corrected. The role of A. stephensi, its prevalence locally, ability to breed in unclean water, and its shifting biting patterns have been incorporated with updated references (including Ghosh et al. 2008). 5. Study area map suggested Response: A geographical map of the study area has been added as a figure, along with a description of local climate and demographics. 6. Last line of introduction should be avoided Response: The final sentence of the introduction has been deleted. 7. Objectives not in complete sentences Response: Objectives have been rewritten into full, clear sentences. 8. Methodology – unclear sample size calculation Response: The sample size section has been rewritten using correct Cochran’s formula notation (Z² and d²). Assumptions are now clearly stated, and the revised calculation aligns with response rate considerations. 9. Methodology – insufficient description of questionnaire development and validation Response: A detailed explanation of questionnaire development—including literature review, item generation, pretesting, and validation—has been added. Content validation by three public health specialists and two medico-social workers was performed using a four-point Likert scale to derive I-CVI and S-CVI/Ave values. Items with I-CVI < 0.78 were revised or removed, and an S-CVI/Ave ≥ 0.8 confirmed good validity; the full questionnaire is now included as a supplementary file.” 10. Methodology – question about insecticide resistance Response: Questions were not included on insecticide resistance; this has now been explicitly stated under methodological limitations. 11. Results section lacked narrative and CIs Response: Comprehensive narrative text now accompanies each table. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added to all proportion estimates. 12. Table 1 – handling of illiterate participants unclear Response: Methods now explain that trained field investigators were administered the questionnaire orally to illiterate participants. 13. Table 2 – issues with response options, clarity, and interpretability Response: Table 2 has been revised for clarity. Question wording and response scales have been standardized, and explanatory notes added. Ambiguous qualitative categories have been justified in methodology and clarification on the categorization of mosquito biting times has been added directly within the respective table. 14. Table 7 – dengue proportion requires context of serotypes Response: Discussion now includes an explanation of dengue serotype circulation (DENV-1, 2, 3), immunity patterns, and why diagnosed cases likely reflect moderate–severe infections. 15. Discussion – irrelevant comparisons and unclear statements Response: Paragraphs on healthcare access, Florida mosquito study, and Mozambique comparison have been removed and rewritten for relevance respectively. Statements unsupported by results were removed. 16. Missing statement: 50% mosquitoes found inside homes Response: This statement was removed as it was not supported by data. 17. Dengue discussion insufficient Response: The dengue section has been expanded to include serotype diversity, severe disease likelihood, and regional epidemiology. 18. Conclusions – novelty claim incorrect; misuse of “correlation” Response: Claims of novelty have been removed, and the conclusions now focus on the integrated approach used as study objectives. The term “association” is now used appropriately throughout. 19. Missing Limitations & omission of spatial repellents/larvicides Response: A detailed Limitations section has been added, including the absence of entomological indices and resistance testing. Discussion now includes spatial repellents and larvicidal interventions. Minor Comments 1. Objectives should use full sentences Response: Revised accordingly. 2. Abstract: specify study area and “Department of Community Medicine” Response: The abstract now specifies the study area and explains the institutional context. 3. Abstract: “mosquito preventive measure” wording Response: Corrected to “for mosquito prevention.” 4. Introduction: mention West Nile virus Response: West Nile virus has been included in the list of mosquito-borne diseases. We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s comprehensive and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed each point, and the manuscript has improved substantially as a result. Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments Major Comments 1. Format of the article (Results section & Discussion) Response: A full narrative description has now been incorporated into the Results section. This text had been included in the earlier revised version of the manuscript but was unfortunately not visible to the reviewer during the previous round of assessment. All misplaced results were removed from the Discussion and relocated appropriately. Background content has been shifted to the Introduction. A detailed Limitations subsection has been added. 2. Abstract Response: Percentages are now presented consistently in numerical form. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added. Holm’s correction was applied for multiple comparisons, and results were updated—“water stagnation” and “construction activity” no longer show significant association. The Conclusions section has been fully revised to accurately reflect the study findings without overstating knowledge gaps. 3. Introduction Response: Global mortality figures were corrected and broken down. The statement on India’s contribution to global malaria burden was corrected to indicate its burden outside Africa. 4. Introduction – Anopheles ecology inaccuracies Response: Statements on Anopheles breeding habits were corrected. The role of A. stephensi, its prevalence locally, ability to breed in unclean water, and its shifting biting patterns have been incorporated with updated references (including Ghosh et al. 2008). 5. Study area map suggested Response: A geographical map of the study area has been added as a figure, along with a description of local climate and demographics. 6. Last line of introduction should be avoided Response: The final sentence of the introduction has been deleted. 7. Objectives not in complete sentences Response: Objectives have been rewritten into full, clear sentences. 8. Methodology – unclear sample size calculation Response: The sample size section has been rewritten using correct Cochran’s formula notation (Z² and d²). Assumptions are now clearly stated, and the revised calculation aligns with response rate considerations. 9. Methodology – insufficient description of questionnaire development and validation Response: A detailed explanation of questionnaire development—including literature review, item generation, pretesting, and validation—has been added. Content validation by three public health specialists and two medico-social workers was performed using a four-point Likert scale to derive I-CVI and S-CVI/Ave values. Items with I-CVI < 0.78 were revised or removed, and an S-CVI/Ave ≥ 0.8 confirmed good validity; the full questionnaire is now included as a supplementary file.” 10. Methodology – question about insecticide resistance Response: Questions were not included on insecticide resistance; this has now been explicitly stated under methodological limitations. 11. Results section lacked narrative and CIs Response: Comprehensive narrative text now accompanies each table. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added to all proportion estimates. 12. Table 1 – handling of illiterate participants unclear Response: Methods now explain that trained field investigators were administered the questionnaire orally to illiterate participants. 13. Table 2 – issues with response options, clarity, and interpretability Response: Table 2 has been revised for clarity. Question wording and response scales have been standardized, and explanatory notes added. Ambiguous qualitative categories have been justified in methodology and clarification on the categorization of mosquito biting times has been added directly within the respective table. 14. Table 7 – dengue proportion requires context of serotypes Response: Discussion now includes an explanation of dengue serotype circulation (DENV-1, 2, 3), immunity patterns, and why diagnosed cases likely reflect moderate–severe infections. 15. Discussion – irrelevant comparisons and unclear statements Response: Paragraphs on healthcare access, Florida mosquito study, and Mozambique comparison have been removed and rewritten for relevance respectively. Statements unsupported by results were removed. 16. Missing statement: 50% mosquitoes found inside homes Response: This statement was removed as it was not supported by data. 17. Dengue discussion insufficient Response: The dengue section has been expanded to include serotype diversity, severe disease likelihood, and regional epidemiology. 18. Conclusions – novelty claim incorrect; misuse of “correlation” Response: Claims of novelty have been removed, and the conclusions now focus on the integrated approach used as study objectives. The term “association” is now used appropriately throughout. 19. Missing Limitations & omission of spatial repellents/larvicides Response: A detailed Limitations section has been added, including the absence of entomological indices and resistance testing. Discussion now includes spatial repellents and larvicidal interventions. Minor Comments 1. Objectives should use full sentences Response: Revised accordingly. 2. Abstract: specify study area and “Department of Community Medicine” Response: The abstract now specifies the study area and explains the institutional context. 3. Abstract: “mosquito preventive measure” wording Response: Corrected to “for mosquito prevention.” 4. Introduction: mention West Nile virus Response: West Nile virus has been included in the list of mosquito-borne diseases. Competing Interests: Nil Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Jul 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Bharathi DD. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181258.r398023 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v1#referee-response-398023 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 22 Aug 2025 Dr Divya Bharathi , Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, banglore, India Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181258.r398023 Title - informative and specific, can include the place of the study. Introduction- Para 2, Line - 2 the arthropods to these arthropods, should be corrected. Avoid redundancy (e.g., restating that mosquitoes transmit diseases multiple times). Review of ... Continue reading READ ALL Title - informative and specific, can include the place of the study. Introduction- Para 2, Line - 2 the arthropods to these arthropods, should be corrected. Avoid redundancy (e.g., restating that mosquitoes transmit diseases multiple times). Review of literature- relevant studies are incorporated. Methodology- Mention if multiple data collectors used and operational definitions for "moderate to severe mosquito nuisance" Discussion- Does not discuss possible confounders Conclusion- Well-summarized. Recognizes the knowledge–practice gap. Overall the study is Context-specific, regionally relevant.Combines environmental, behavioral, and health outcome data. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Communicable diseases, Rabies, Vector borne diseases, MCH I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Bharathi DD. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181258.r398023 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v1#referee-response-398023 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 15 Sep 2025 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN , Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 15 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you very much for reviewing the revised manuscript and confirming your approval. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading, thoughtful feedback, and guidance, which have greatly contributed to improving the ... Continue reading Thank you very much for reviewing the revised manuscript and confirming your approval. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading, thoughtful feedback, and guidance, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the article. . The manuscript has been further revised to address reviewer comments: in the Introduction, typographical errors (e.g., “the arthropods” → “to these arthropods”) have been corrected, and redundancy regarding mosquito-borne diseases has been removed. Relevant studies have been incorporated in the merged Review of Literature. The Discussion has been refined to acknowledge possible confounders, and the Conclusion highlights the knowledge–practice gap. Overall, the study remains context-specific and regionally relevant, integrating environmental, behavioral, and health outcome data to provide actionable insights. Your confirmation reassures us that the manuscript accurately reflects the study’s objectives and findings. Thanking you With regards Corresponding author Thank you very much for reviewing the revised manuscript and confirming your approval. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading, thoughtful feedback, and guidance, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the article. . The manuscript has been further revised to address reviewer comments: in the Introduction, typographical errors (e.g., “the arthropods” → “to these arthropods”) have been corrected, and redundancy regarding mosquito-borne diseases has been removed. Relevant studies have been incorporated in the merged Review of Literature. The Discussion has been refined to acknowledge possible confounders, and the Conclusion highlights the knowledge–practice gap. Overall, the study remains context-specific and regionally relevant, integrating environmental, behavioral, and health outcome data to provide actionable insights. Your confirmation reassures us that the manuscript accurately reflects the study’s objectives and findings. Thanking you With regards Corresponding author Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 15 Sep 2025 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN , Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 15 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you very much for reviewing the revised manuscript and confirming your approval. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading, thoughtful feedback, and guidance, which have greatly contributed to improving the ... Continue reading Thank you very much for reviewing the revised manuscript and confirming your approval. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading, thoughtful feedback, and guidance, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the article. . The manuscript has been further revised to address reviewer comments: in the Introduction, typographical errors (e.g., “the arthropods” → “to these arthropods”) have been corrected, and redundancy regarding mosquito-borne diseases has been removed. Relevant studies have been incorporated in the merged Review of Literature. The Discussion has been refined to acknowledge possible confounders, and the Conclusion highlights the knowledge–practice gap. Overall, the study remains context-specific and regionally relevant, integrating environmental, behavioral, and health outcome data to provide actionable insights. Your confirmation reassures us that the manuscript accurately reflects the study’s objectives and findings. Thanking you With regards Corresponding author Thank you very much for reviewing the revised manuscript and confirming your approval. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading, thoughtful feedback, and guidance, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the article. . The manuscript has been further revised to address reviewer comments: in the Introduction, typographical errors (e.g., “the arthropods” → “to these arthropods”) have been corrected, and redundancy regarding mosquito-borne diseases has been removed. Relevant studies have been incorporated in the merged Review of Literature. The Discussion has been refined to acknowledge possible confounders, and the Conclusion highlights the knowledge–practice gap. Overall, the study remains context-specific and regionally relevant, integrating environmental, behavioral, and health outcome data to provide actionable insights. Your confirmation reassures us that the manuscript accurately reflects the study’s objectives and findings. Thanking you With regards Corresponding author Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Khan S. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181258.r400061 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v1#referee-response-400061 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Aug 2025 Siraj Khan , ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Lahowal, India Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181258.r400061 Summary The article entitled ‘ Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study’ is well written and emphasizes the importance of community-based interventions and identifies gaps in local authority involvement, which can influence municipal policy. While ... Continue reading READ ALL Summary The article entitled ‘ Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study’ is well written and emphasizes the importance of community-based interventions and identifies gaps in local authority involvement, which can influence municipal policy. While the study is relevant and well-organized, it requires stronger justification of its novelty, broader statistical analysis, and clearer resolution of paradoxical findings regarding preventive practices. Addressing these would significantly improve the rigor and clarity of the manuscript. 1. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? a. ‘An initial survey conducted in Mangalore taluk identified 26 mosquito species across six genera’- add reference here. b. Several references are cited without corresponding numbers in the bibliography (e.g., references 14–21). Ensure accurate and complete citation. 2.If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? a. The sample size (n=95) is small for making generalizable statements, especially in a city with high heterogeneity in socioeconomic and environmental factors. b. The statistical data will be more reliable when it is presented confidence intervals in addition to p-values. c. The households using coils and repellents had higher disease prevalence is discussed but not thoroughly explained. Could reverse causation or confounding (e.g., higher-density mosquito areas using more coils) be responsible? d. No multivariate analysis e.g., logistic regression was performed, which could have clarified confounding between overlapping risk factors like vegetation, construction, and socioeconomic variables. 3. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? a. While the problem is important, similar studies have been published in other endemic settings. Authors are advised to clearly express the novelty—what new insights does this paper provide that prior research (e.g., Wilke et al., 2020; Garbin et al., 2021) did not. b. The graphical representation of data is more understandable as demographic data is concerned. Other comments a . Scientific names like Aedes aegypti and Anopheles should be consistently italicized. 'b. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are mosquitoes that belong to the Culicines category,’ -what does ‘category’ means here? c. Review of literature section can be merged with Introduction section. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Medical Entomology, Vector borne Diseases, Rickettsial diseases, Public health research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Khan S. Reviewer Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181258.r400061 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v1#referee-response-400061 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 15 Sep 2025 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN , Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 15 Sep 2025 Author Response We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments have been invaluable in refining the manuscript, and we ... Continue reading We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments have been invaluable in refining the manuscript, and we have addressed each suggestion thoroughly in the responses below. 1 a. " An initial survey conducted in Mangalore taluk identified 26 mosquito species across six genera "- The reference has been added as suggested. 1.b. Several references are cited without corresponding numbers in the bibliography- All references have been thoroughly verified to ensure that the citations are accurate and complete. 2 a. The sample size (n=95) is small for making generalizable statements, especially in a city with high heterogeneity in socioeconomic and environmental factors- We ensured representative coverage across wards by dividing the households equally among the selected 5 wards (19 households per ward) out of 60 wards. The sampling strategy has been mentioned in methodology. Hope, this systematic approach maximize representativeness and reduce selection bias within the constraints of the study. 2.b. The statistical data will be more reliable when it is presented confidence intervals in addition to p-values- The table 7 & 8 have been revised to present odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals alongside the previously reported p-values. 2.c The households using coils and repellents had higher disease prevalence is discussed but not thoroughly explained. Could reverse causation or confounding (e.g., higher-density mosquito areas using more coils) be responsible?- The justification has been provided in the last paragraph of discussion section. 2.d. No multivariate analysis e.g., logistic regression was performed, which could have clarified confounding between overlapping risk factors like vegetation, construction, and socioeconomic variables- The table 7 & 8 have been revised incorporating logistic regression analysis. 3.a. While the problem is important, similar studies have been published in other endemic settings. Authors are advised to clearly express the novelty—what new insights does this paper provide that prior research (e.g., Wilke et al., 2020; Garbin et al., 2021) did not- The study adopts novel objectives, focusing on an integrated approach that identifies key determinants of mosquito presence while simultaneously evaluating community measures, perceptions, and self-reported disease burden, providing context-specific insights from Mangalore that extend beyond previous studies in other settings. This has been incorporated into the conclusion. 3.b. The graphical representation of data is more understandable as demographic data is concerned- We appreciate the suggestion regarding graphical representation. However, we have retained the tabular format for demographic data, as it allow us for clear presentation of detailed counts and percentages across multiple categories, which may be less effectively conveyed in graphs. a . Scientific names like Aedes aegypti and Anopheles should be consistently italicized- This has been incorporated across the article. b. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are mosquitoes that belong to the Culicines category,’ -what does ‘category’ means here?- This has been revised in introduction section Para 3, line 1. c. Review of literature section can be merged with Introduction section- The Review of Literature section has been merged with the Introduction We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable time, insightful comments, and constructive suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions adequately address all concerns, and we look forward to the reviewer’s further feedback. We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments have been invaluable in refining the manuscript, and we have addressed each suggestion thoroughly in the responses below. 1 a. " An initial survey conducted in Mangalore taluk identified 26 mosquito species across six genera "- The reference has been added as suggested. 1.b. Several references are cited without corresponding numbers in the bibliography- All references have been thoroughly verified to ensure that the citations are accurate and complete. 2 a. The sample size (n=95) is small for making generalizable statements, especially in a city with high heterogeneity in socioeconomic and environmental factors- We ensured representative coverage across wards by dividing the households equally among the selected 5 wards (19 households per ward) out of 60 wards. The sampling strategy has been mentioned in methodology. Hope, this systematic approach maximize representativeness and reduce selection bias within the constraints of the study. 2.b. The statistical data will be more reliable when it is presented confidence intervals in addition to p-values- The table 7 & 8 have been revised to present odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals alongside the previously reported p-values. 2.c The households using coils and repellents had higher disease prevalence is discussed but not thoroughly explained. Could reverse causation or confounding (e.g., higher-density mosquito areas using more coils) be responsible?- The justification has been provided in the last paragraph of discussion section. 2.d. No multivariate analysis e.g., logistic regression was performed, which could have clarified confounding between overlapping risk factors like vegetation, construction, and socioeconomic variables- The table 7 & 8 have been revised incorporating logistic regression analysis. 3.a. While the problem is important, similar studies have been published in other endemic settings. Authors are advised to clearly express the novelty—what new insights does this paper provide that prior research (e.g., Wilke et al., 2020; Garbin et al., 2021) did not- The study adopts novel objectives, focusing on an integrated approach that identifies key determinants of mosquito presence while simultaneously evaluating community measures, perceptions, and self-reported disease burden, providing context-specific insights from Mangalore that extend beyond previous studies in other settings. This has been incorporated into the conclusion. 3.b. The graphical representation of data is more understandable as demographic data is concerned- We appreciate the suggestion regarding graphical representation. However, we have retained the tabular format for demographic data, as it allow us for clear presentation of detailed counts and percentages across multiple categories, which may be less effectively conveyed in graphs. a . Scientific names like Aedes aegypti and Anopheles should be consistently italicized- This has been incorporated across the article. b. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are mosquitoes that belong to the Culicines category,’ -what does ‘category’ means here?- This has been revised in introduction section Para 3, line 1. c. Review of literature section can be merged with Introduction section- The Review of Literature section has been merged with the Introduction We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable time, insightful comments, and constructive suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions adequately address all concerns, and we look forward to the reviewer’s further feedback. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 15 Sep 2025 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN , Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 15 Sep 2025 Author Response We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments have been invaluable in refining the manuscript, and we ... Continue reading We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments have been invaluable in refining the manuscript, and we have addressed each suggestion thoroughly in the responses below. 1 a. " An initial survey conducted in Mangalore taluk identified 26 mosquito species across six genera "- The reference has been added as suggested. 1.b. Several references are cited without corresponding numbers in the bibliography- All references have been thoroughly verified to ensure that the citations are accurate and complete. 2 a. The sample size (n=95) is small for making generalizable statements, especially in a city with high heterogeneity in socioeconomic and environmental factors- We ensured representative coverage across wards by dividing the households equally among the selected 5 wards (19 households per ward) out of 60 wards. The sampling strategy has been mentioned in methodology. Hope, this systematic approach maximize representativeness and reduce selection bias within the constraints of the study. 2.b. The statistical data will be more reliable when it is presented confidence intervals in addition to p-values- The table 7 & 8 have been revised to present odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals alongside the previously reported p-values. 2.c The households using coils and repellents had higher disease prevalence is discussed but not thoroughly explained. Could reverse causation or confounding (e.g., higher-density mosquito areas using more coils) be responsible?- The justification has been provided in the last paragraph of discussion section. 2.d. No multivariate analysis e.g., logistic regression was performed, which could have clarified confounding between overlapping risk factors like vegetation, construction, and socioeconomic variables- The table 7 & 8 have been revised incorporating logistic regression analysis. 3.a. While the problem is important, similar studies have been published in other endemic settings. Authors are advised to clearly express the novelty—what new insights does this paper provide that prior research (e.g., Wilke et al., 2020; Garbin et al., 2021) did not- The study adopts novel objectives, focusing on an integrated approach that identifies key determinants of mosquito presence while simultaneously evaluating community measures, perceptions, and self-reported disease burden, providing context-specific insights from Mangalore that extend beyond previous studies in other settings. This has been incorporated into the conclusion. 3.b. The graphical representation of data is more understandable as demographic data is concerned- We appreciate the suggestion regarding graphical representation. However, we have retained the tabular format for demographic data, as it allow us for clear presentation of detailed counts and percentages across multiple categories, which may be less effectively conveyed in graphs. a . Scientific names like Aedes aegypti and Anopheles should be consistently italicized- This has been incorporated across the article. b. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are mosquitoes that belong to the Culicines category,’ -what does ‘category’ means here?- This has been revised in introduction section Para 3, line 1. c. Review of literature section can be merged with Introduction section- The Review of Literature section has been merged with the Introduction We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable time, insightful comments, and constructive suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions adequately address all concerns, and we look forward to the reviewer’s further feedback. We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments have been invaluable in refining the manuscript, and we have addressed each suggestion thoroughly in the responses below. 1 a. " An initial survey conducted in Mangalore taluk identified 26 mosquito species across six genera "- The reference has been added as suggested. 1.b. Several references are cited without corresponding numbers in the bibliography- All references have been thoroughly verified to ensure that the citations are accurate and complete. 2 a. The sample size (n=95) is small for making generalizable statements, especially in a city with high heterogeneity in socioeconomic and environmental factors- We ensured representative coverage across wards by dividing the households equally among the selected 5 wards (19 households per ward) out of 60 wards. The sampling strategy has been mentioned in methodology. Hope, this systematic approach maximize representativeness and reduce selection bias within the constraints of the study. 2.b. The statistical data will be more reliable when it is presented confidence intervals in addition to p-values- The table 7 & 8 have been revised to present odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals alongside the previously reported p-values. 2.c The households using coils and repellents had higher disease prevalence is discussed but not thoroughly explained. Could reverse causation or confounding (e.g., higher-density mosquito areas using more coils) be responsible?- The justification has been provided in the last paragraph of discussion section. 2.d. No multivariate analysis e.g., logistic regression was performed, which could have clarified confounding between overlapping risk factors like vegetation, construction, and socioeconomic variables- The table 7 & 8 have been revised incorporating logistic regression analysis. 3.a. While the problem is important, similar studies have been published in other endemic settings. Authors are advised to clearly express the novelty—what new insights does this paper provide that prior research (e.g., Wilke et al., 2020; Garbin et al., 2021) did not- The study adopts novel objectives, focusing on an integrated approach that identifies key determinants of mosquito presence while simultaneously evaluating community measures, perceptions, and self-reported disease burden, providing context-specific insights from Mangalore that extend beyond previous studies in other settings. This has been incorporated into the conclusion. 3.b. The graphical representation of data is more understandable as demographic data is concerned- We appreciate the suggestion regarding graphical representation. However, we have retained the tabular format for demographic data, as it allow us for clear presentation of detailed counts and percentages across multiple categories, which may be less effectively conveyed in graphs. a . Scientific names like Aedes aegypti and Anopheles should be consistently italicized- This has been incorporated across the article. b. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are mosquitoes that belong to the Culicines category,’ -what does ‘category’ means here?- This has been revised in introduction section Para 3, line 1. c. Review of literature section can be merged with Introduction section- The Review of Literature section has been merged with the Introduction We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable time, insightful comments, and constructive suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions adequately address all concerns, and we look forward to the reviewer’s further feedback. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 07 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 5 Version 4 (revision) 18 Dec 25 read read Version 3 (revision) 26 Nov 25 read read Version 2 (revision) 01 Sep 25 read Version 1 07 Jul 25 read read Siraj Khan , ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Lahowal, India Dr Divya Bharathi , Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, banglore, India Kristan Alexander Schneider , University of Applied Sciences Mittweida, Mittweida, Germany Asma Rahim , Government Medical College, Kozhikode, India Oluwaseun Adegbola Adesoye , University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Rahim A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jan 2026 | for Version 4 Asma Rahim , Government Medical College, Kozhikode, India 0 Views copyright © 2026 Rahim A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have addressed the points for revision raised by me satisfactorily. This article is fit for indexing. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Public health , Community Rheumatology, Health professions education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Rahim A. Peer Review Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193548.r442634) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4#referee-response-442634 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Adesoye O. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jan 2026 | for Version 4 Oluwaseun Adegbola Adesoye , University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2026 Adesoye O. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The work is clearly stated and well presented. However, some references cited are too old. For instance, reference 22 and 27 is too old since the work examines recent happening that aids mosquito proliferation. Also, some major statistical interpretations are incorrect. For instance, there were no statistical association according to your multivariable analysis, yet, your paper keep saying construction sites and water stagnation are strong determinant. This has be modified. Further more, use of P at 0.02 threshold has to be justified with standard epidemiological work. Most importantly, since no entomological indices such as larval count, adult house index was measure, the title and the conclusion/recommendation exceed strength of evidence provided. Thus, recommendation should be Precautionary and Perception0informed and not evidence. Also, 'Mosquito density' used in title, tables etc could be modified into something like 'Perceived mosquito density' since this is not measured Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Applied Entomology, Medical and Molecular Entomology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Adesoye OA. Peer Review Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193548.r443038) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4#referee-response-443038 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khan S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Dec 2025 | for Version 3 Siraj Khan , ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Lahowal, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khan S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have thoroughly addressed all the comments raised in the initial review, providing clear revisions and satisfactory clarifications wherever required. The manuscript has improved substantially in terms of clarity, methodological presentation, and overall scientific quality. All major and minor concerns have been resolved, and no further revisions are necessary at this stage. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for indexing. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Medical Entomology, Arbovirology, Rickettsial Diseases, Public health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Khan S. Peer Review Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191677.r436213) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v3#referee-response-436213 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rahim A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 11 Dec 2025 | for Version 3 Asma Rahim , Government Medical College, Kozhikode, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rahim A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Introduction — add a paragraph on coastal urban vector ecology and novelty of Mangalore Add a conceptual framework ( WHO’s integrated vector management or ecosocial framework) Split the research questions into Primary and secondary . Objectives (rewrite, split primary/secondary).Eg:Primary objective • To identify environmental and household determinants associated with increased mosquito presence in the urban field practice area of Mangalore. Secondary objectives • To describe household-level preventive practices and community perceptions towards mosquito-borne diseases. • To estimate the prevalence of self-reported mosquito-borne disease in the last 12 months and assess associations with environmental and behavioral factors after adjustment. Methods — Questionnaire validation (insert a concise methods paragraph).add content validity, pilot test, and Cronbach’s alpha for each construct. Methods — Operational definitions (insert a short table or list), Mosquito presence (household level, Nuisance score, Self-reported mosquito-borne disease, Water stagnation. Eg . Visible standing water that persisted for >48 hours after rain or due to blocked drains in the household compound or immediate neighbourhood. Sampling : clarify purposive ward selection, add random start for street sampling, acknowledge exclusion of apartments. Analysis: Add multivariable logistic regression. Results: rewrite causal statements, clean tables, add CIs and adjusted ORs. Tables — formatting checklist Each table: give a clear title, state N for the analysis, and column denominators. For categorical comparisons, show counts and percentages: “n (%)”. For key associations, present crude OR (95% CI) and adjusted OR (95% CI) in a single table. Ensure p-values match the test used and report exact values (not only “0.00” or “<0.05”). Fix Table numbering and remove “continued” fragments by merging or reformatting long tables. 11. Discussion: add explanation of key findings, strengths and limitations, policy implications. 12. Limitations: Add an explicit paragraph about seasonality, selection bias, and self-reporting. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Public health , Community Rheumatology, Health professions education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 09 Jan 2026 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN, Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 1. Introduction — Addition on coastal urban vector ecology and relevance to Mangalore Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have incorporated a dedicated paragraph describing coastal urban vector ecology, highlighting the influence of relative humidity and artificial breeding habitats on Anopheles stephensi proliferation, with contextual relevance to Mangalore’s humid coastal environment. 2. Conceptual framework —Addition of Eco-social framework Response: As advised, we have added a section on the eco-social framework to explain the multilevel pathways linking environmental, structural, and behavioural factors to vector proliferation In the last paragraph of introduction. 3. Research questions — Split into primary and secondary Response: The research questions have now been clearly divided into primary and secondary categories. 4. Objectives — Rewritten and split into primary and secondary Response: We have revised the objectives section to explicitly distinguish: Primary objective: Identifying environmental and household determinants associated with mosquito presence. Secondary objectives: Describing preventive practices, community perceptions, and estimating the prevalence of self-reported mosquito-borne diseases with adjusted associations. 5. Methods — Questionnaire validation (content validity, pilot testing, reliability) Response: We have added a concise paragraph on questionnaire validation. This includes details on expert content validation, pilot testing among 20 households and subsequent revisions, and Cronbach’s alpha (≥0.7) for internal consistency. This meets methodological rigor expected for community-based KAP and environmental assessment tools. 6. Methods — Operational definitions Response: definitions for all key variables—mosquito presence, nuisance score, self-reported mosquito-borne disease, and water stagnation—have been added. These definitions were included as a structured text for clarity and reproducibility. 7. Sampling — Clarified purposive ward selection, random start, and apartment exclusion Response: The sampling description was expanded to clarify purposive selection of wards, the use of a random start for street sampling, selection of every 3rd household, and acknowledgement of exclusion of apartment complexes due to restricted access. 8. Analysis — Addition of multivariable logistic regression Response: As suggested, we have added multivariable logistic regression in the analysis section to identify independent predictors of mosquito presence, preventive behaviours, and mosquito-borne disease. 9. Results — Revised causal wording, cleaned tables, added CIs and adjusted ORs Response: All causal statements have been revised to ensure appropriate observational language. Tables have been reformatted to include n (%), 95% CIs, and both crude and adjusted ORs in a unified format. Formatting inconsistencies have been corrected, and “continued” fragments removed. 10. Tables — Formatting fixes applied Response: We thank the reviewer for the detailed checklist. Each table now includes: A clear title and sample size, Column denominators, n (%) for categorical variables, crude and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs, correct p-values with appropriate reporting, corrected numbering and removal of unnecessary fragments. 11. Discussion — Added strengths, limitations, and policy implications Response: Strengths—such as systematic sampling, validated tools, and multidimensional assessment—are now clearly articulated. Policy implications relevant to NVBDCP and municipal vector control have also been added. 12. Limitations — Added paragraph on seasonality, selection bias, and self-report Response: We have added an explicit limitations paragraph acknowledging: Timing of data collection (post-monsoon transitional period), potential selection bias due to exclusion of apartments (In methodology), social desirability and recall bias in self-reported behaviours and illness. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Rahim A. Peer Review Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191677.r436695) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v3#referee-response-436695 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Schneider K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Nov 2025 | for Version 2 Kristan Alexander Schneider , University of Applied Sciences Mittweida, Mittweida, Germany 0 Views copyright © 2025 Schneider K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have reservations against the current version of the article, regarding its format, methodology and content, which I want to lay out below. Major comments Format of the article: The result section of the article consists only of tables, without any text describing and explaining the results. The description of the results is mixed into the discussion section. The discussion lacks to critically reflect on limitations, but provides background information, which is better suite for the introduction. Abstract: Results: Sometimes percentages are reported as decimal numbers, sometimes spelled out as words. This inconsistency should be avoided, and ideally confidence intervals should be reported too (e.g. exact binomial confidence intervals). When analyzing outcomes of individual questions in the questionnaire, adjustments for multiple testing (e.g. Holm’s correction for FWER) should be applied. To me, it seems neither “water stagnation” nor “construction activity” would have a significant association with mosquito abundance once a correction for multiple testing is applied. Conclusions: The conclusions do not reflect the results. If 92% of respondents are aware of mosquito-borne diseases, which is higher than the 91.5% of households that use chemical mosquito prevention, it is hardly justified to claim that there is “a gap in community knowledge and perception of mosquito-borne diseases, even though people are aware of basic precautions,…”. The conclusions should be aligned with the actual findings. Introduction: “7,00,000 deaths” should presumably read “700,000 deaths”. This number needs to be commented. Malaria causes 600,000 to 700,000 deaths per year, whereas other mosquito-borne diseases cause tens of thousands. These numbers should be broken down in more detail. The statement “India accounts for 79% of the global malaria burden” cannot be true since 94% of cases and 95% of deaths occur in sub-Sahara Africa. What is true is that India accounts for the majority (around 52%) of malaria cases outside Africa. Furthermore, the information on Anopheles should be formulated more carefully. Not all Anopheles species breed in clean water. The urban vector Anopheles stephensi , which becomes invasive in many countries, is known to bead also in unclean water ( A. stephensi is prevalent in the study area, cf. Ghosh et al. 2008; this should be mentioned). Moreover, several Anopheles species were reported to shift towards more diurnal biting behavior after being targeted by IRS and after deployment of LLITNs. I suggest including a map of the study side alongside some of the key climatic characteristics etc. of the region. The last sentence of the introduction should be avoided. Objectives: Whole sentences should be used in this section. Methodology: I do not understand the sample size calculation. It resembles a bit Cochran’s formula but, it has some errors. Before a sample size can be determined, there must be a clear analysis plan. Based on these specifics, the sample size has to be determined. The current formula has some problems. If it is Cochran’s formula Z a 2 , should be Z 2 , with Z =1.96 being the 97.5% quantile of the standard normal distribution rather than the 95% confidence interval. Second, d2 should be d 2 , with d being the margin of error, rather than the relative precision (whatever this should be). In any case it is unclear how the authors arrive at a sample size of N=95 . With Cochran’s formula and 20% non-responders, I calculated N=68 . In the second paragraph on page 6 the methodology of the questionnaire cannot be assessed. The sentence “A pretested internally validated physical questionnaire designed after extensive literature review…” dose not sufficiently describe the methodology. A description how the literature research was performed is necessary. It should also explain in detail how the questionnaire was validated and by whom. It should be more prominently stated that the is provided as supplement. I am also wondering whether the questionnaire asked about insecticide resistance. This is an issue in the area given that A. stephensi is prevalent there. Results: The result section lacks any main text. Rather tables are listed without any description. In general, it is good practice to provide confidence intervals alongside the frequency estimates. Regarding the information in Table 1, 5.2% of the participants are illiterate. I am wondering how these participants completed the questionnaire. This needs to be described in the methods. I find the questions and answers in Table 2 rather unfortunate. Presumable because not the actual question is provided. For instance, “Presence of mosquitoes inside the house” sounds like a dichotomous question to me, or like a quantitative question, however the answers “Mild”, and “Moderate to Severe” are rather qualitative. It is also unclear from the questionnaire what exactly was reported and which questions and how they were aggregated. “Time of the day when mosquitoes mostly bite” has answers “Morning”, “Evening”, and “Night”. These answers are unfortunate, since there is no clear-cut definition for “Morning”, “Evening”, and “Night”. To some 10pm might be evening, to others it would be night. Moreover, this might not have anything to do with the actual biting behavior, because it is not uncommon to not notice when mosquitoes are biting. If you wake up with a couple of mosquito bites, it is unclear when they bite. I also found the possible answers “Mild” and “Moderate to Severe” to the question “Overall mosquito nuisance in locality compared to past one year” not ideal. What is if mosquito nuisance is significantly reduced in comparison to the previous years. “Mild” is not a good qualitative summary of significantly less. In Table 7, I am wondering about the mosquito born diseases. Apparently, of the 28 persons, who suffered from a mosquito borne disease, 71.4% had dengue. While dengue incidence is 2.5 times higher than malaria in the region, this seems to fit in the picture. However, in this context it is important to note that several serotypes circulate in this area (DENV-2, DENV-3, and also DENV-1). Since one acquires lasting immunity against the first infecting serotype (which typically cause mild infections with unspecific symptoms) and temporal immunity against the others, one can make the implication that the persons with a dengue infection had a severe infection. Otherwise, dengue would not be diagnosed. It is important to discuss these facts. Discussion: The first two lines make little sense given the study design. The study was conducted in an urban setting close to the Medical College. Hence, it is not surprising that study participants report good access to healthcare. Moreover, the access to healthcare is less important than the ability to properly diagnose vector-borne diseases. Furthermore, the study had a focus on mosquitoes, not on healthcare access. The rest of the first paragraph also makes no sense. The study in Florida is concerned with a totally different mosquito population. I do not see the connection between residents in Florida feeling bothered by mosquitoes and a population in India. The compassion between India and Mozambique in the second paragraph also is of limited relevance. Also, the relevance of the fourth and fifth paragraph is unclear to me. The third paragraph states that 50% of the mosquitoes were often found inside the house. I cannot find this result in any of the Tables. The first paragraph on page 13 should discuss dengue in more detail. Conclusions: It is stated that the study adopts a “novel,” integrated approach. To me, it is unclear what is novel about a questionnaire? The term “correlation” is not correctly used. Correlations between metric (or ordinal) variables. Otherwise, it is an association. In general, I miss a clear discussion on the limitations of the study. I also think spatial repellants or larvicides should be discussed somewhere in the text. Minor comments Abstract: I suggest using whole sentences under the heading “Objectives”. Be specific about the study area and explain what the “Department of Community Medicine” is. Results: “… as mosquito preventive measure.” -> “… for mosquito prevention.” Introduction: When you mention dengue and chikungunya, you might also mention West Nile virus. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No References 1. Ghosh S, Tiwari S, Raghavendra K, Sathyanarayan T, et al.: Observations on sporozoite detection in naturally infected sibling species of the Anopheles culicifacies complex and variant of Anopheles stephensi in India. Journal of Biosciences . 2008; 33 (3): 333-336 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Global health, mathematical modeling, biostatistics, bioinformatics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 26 Nov 2025 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN, Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s comprehensive and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed each point, and the manuscript has improved substantially as a result. Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments Major Comments 1. Format of the article (Results section & Discussion) Response: A full narrative description has now been incorporated into the Results section. This text had been included in the earlier revised version of the manuscript but was unfortunately not visible to the reviewer during the previous round of assessment. All misplaced results were removed from the Discussion and relocated appropriately. Background content has been shifted to the Introduction. A detailed Limitations subsection has been added. 2. Abstract Response: Percentages are now presented consistently in numerical form. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added. Holm’s correction was applied for multiple comparisons, and results were updated—“water stagnation” and “construction activity” no longer show significant association. The Conclusions section has been fully revised to accurately reflect the study findings without overstating knowledge gaps. 3. Introduction Response: Global mortality figures were corrected and broken down. The statement on India’s contribution to global malaria burden was corrected to indicate its burden outside Africa. 4. Introduction – Anopheles ecology inaccuracies Response: Statements on Anopheles breeding habits were corrected. The role of A. stephensi, its prevalence locally, ability to breed in unclean water, and its shifting biting patterns have been incorporated with updated references (including Ghosh et al. 2008). 5. Study area map suggested Response: A geographical map of the study area has been added as a figure, along with a description of local climate and demographics. 6. Last line of introduction should be avoided Response: The final sentence of the introduction has been deleted. 7. Objectives not in complete sentences Response: Objectives have been rewritten into full, clear sentences. 8. Methodology – unclear sample size calculation Response: The sample size section has been rewritten using correct Cochran’s formula notation (Z² and d²). Assumptions are now clearly stated, and the revised calculation aligns with response rate considerations. 9. Methodology – insufficient description of questionnaire development and validation Response: A detailed explanation of questionnaire development—including literature review, item generation, pretesting, and validation—has been added. Content validation by three public health specialists and two medico-social workers was performed using a four-point Likert scale to derive I-CVI and S-CVI/Ave values. Items with I-CVI < 0.78 were revised or removed, and an S-CVI/Ave ≥ 0.8 confirmed good validity; the full questionnaire is now included as a supplementary file.” 10. Methodology – question about insecticide resistance Response: Questions were not included on insecticide resistance; this has now been explicitly stated under methodological limitations. 11. Results section lacked narrative and CIs Response: Comprehensive narrative text now accompanies each table. Exact binomial confidence intervals were added to all proportion estimates. 12. Table 1 – handling of illiterate participants unclear Response: Methods now explain that trained field investigators were administered the questionnaire orally to illiterate participants. 13. Table 2 – issues with response options, clarity, and interpretability Response: Table 2 has been revised for clarity. Question wording and response scales have been standardized, and explanatory notes added. Ambiguous qualitative categories have been justified in methodology and clarification on the categorization of mosquito biting times has been added directly within the respective table. 14. Table 7 – dengue proportion requires context of serotypes Response: Discussion now includes an explanation of dengue serotype circulation (DENV-1, 2, 3), immunity patterns, and why diagnosed cases likely reflect moderate–severe infections. 15. Discussion – irrelevant comparisons and unclear statements Response: Paragraphs on healthcare access, Florida mosquito study, and Mozambique comparison have been removed and rewritten for relevance respectively. Statements unsupported by results were removed. 16. Missing statement: 50% mosquitoes found inside homes Response: This statement was removed as it was not supported by data. 17. Dengue discussion insufficient Response: The dengue section has been expanded to include serotype diversity, severe disease likelihood, and regional epidemiology. 18. Conclusions – novelty claim incorrect; misuse of “correlation” Response: Claims of novelty have been removed, and the conclusions now focus on the integrated approach used as study objectives. The term “association” is now used appropriately throughout. 19. Missing Limitations & omission of spatial repellents/larvicides Response: A detailed Limitations section has been added, including the absence of entomological indices and resistance testing. Discussion now includes spatial repellents and larvicidal interventions. Minor Comments 1. Objectives should use full sentences Response: Revised accordingly. 2. Abstract: specify study area and “Department of Community Medicine” Response: The abstract now specifies the study area and explains the institutional context. 3. Abstract: “mosquito preventive measure” wording Response: Corrected to “for mosquito prevention.” 4. Introduction: mention West Nile virus Response: West Nile virus has been included in the list of mosquito-borne diseases. View more View less Competing Interests Nil reply Respond Report a concern Schneider KA. Peer Review Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187323.r416581) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v2#referee-response-416581 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Bharathi D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 22 Aug 2025 | for Version 1 Dr Divya Bharathi , Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, banglore, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Bharathi D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Title - informative and specific, can include the place of the study. Introduction- Para 2, Line - 2 the arthropods to these arthropods, should be corrected. Avoid redundancy (e.g., restating that mosquitoes transmit diseases multiple times). Review of literature- relevant studies are incorporated. Methodology- Mention if multiple data collectors used and operational definitions for "moderate to severe mosquito nuisance" Discussion- Does not discuss possible confounders Conclusion- Well-summarized. Recognizes the knowledge–practice gap. Overall the study is Context-specific, regionally relevant.Combines environmental, behavioral, and health outcome data. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Communicable diseases, Rabies, Vector borne diseases, MCH I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 15 Sep 2025 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN, Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India Thank you very much for reviewing the revised manuscript and confirming your approval. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading, thoughtful feedback, and guidance, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the article. . The manuscript has been further revised to address reviewer comments: in the Introduction, typographical errors (e.g., “the arthropods” → “to these arthropods”) have been corrected, and redundancy regarding mosquito-borne diseases has been removed. Relevant studies have been incorporated in the merged Review of Literature. The Discussion has been refined to acknowledge possible confounders, and the Conclusion highlights the knowledge–practice gap. Overall, the study remains context-specific and regionally relevant, integrating environmental, behavioral, and health outcome data to provide actionable insights. Your confirmation reassures us that the manuscript accurately reflects the study’s objectives and findings. Thanking you With regards Corresponding author View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests reply Respond Report a concern Bharathi DD. Peer Review Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181258.r398023) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v1#referee-response-398023 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khan S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Aug 2025 | for Version 1 Siraj Khan , ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Lahowal, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khan S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Summary The article entitled ‘ Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study’ is well written and emphasizes the importance of community-based interventions and identifies gaps in local authority involvement, which can influence municipal policy. While the study is relevant and well-organized, it requires stronger justification of its novelty, broader statistical analysis, and clearer resolution of paradoxical findings regarding preventive practices. Addressing these would significantly improve the rigor and clarity of the manuscript. 1. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? a. ‘An initial survey conducted in Mangalore taluk identified 26 mosquito species across six genera’- add reference here. b. Several references are cited without corresponding numbers in the bibliography (e.g., references 14–21). Ensure accurate and complete citation. 2.If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? a. The sample size (n=95) is small for making generalizable statements, especially in a city with high heterogeneity in socioeconomic and environmental factors. b. The statistical data will be more reliable when it is presented confidence intervals in addition to p-values. c. The households using coils and repellents had higher disease prevalence is discussed but not thoroughly explained. Could reverse causation or confounding (e.g., higher-density mosquito areas using more coils) be responsible? d. No multivariate analysis e.g., logistic regression was performed, which could have clarified confounding between overlapping risk factors like vegetation, construction, and socioeconomic variables. 3. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? a. While the problem is important, similar studies have been published in other endemic settings. Authors are advised to clearly express the novelty—what new insights does this paper provide that prior research (e.g., Wilke et al., 2020; Garbin et al., 2021) did not. b. The graphical representation of data is more understandable as demographic data is concerned. Other comments a . Scientific names like Aedes aegypti and Anopheles should be consistently italicized. 'b. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are mosquitoes that belong to the Culicines category,’ -what does ‘category’ means here? c. Review of literature section can be merged with Introduction section. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Medical Entomology, Vector borne Diseases, Rickettsial diseases, Public health research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 15 Sep 2025 DR JITHIN SURENDRAN, Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments have been invaluable in refining the manuscript, and we have addressed each suggestion thoroughly in the responses below. 1 a. " An initial survey conducted in Mangalore taluk identified 26 mosquito species across six genera "- The reference has been added as suggested. 1.b. Several references are cited without corresponding numbers in the bibliography- All references have been thoroughly verified to ensure that the citations are accurate and complete. 2 a. The sample size (n=95) is small for making generalizable statements, especially in a city with high heterogeneity in socioeconomic and environmental factors- We ensured representative coverage across wards by dividing the households equally among the selected 5 wards (19 households per ward) out of 60 wards. The sampling strategy has been mentioned in methodology. Hope, this systematic approach maximize representativeness and reduce selection bias within the constraints of the study. 2.b. The statistical data will be more reliable when it is presented confidence intervals in addition to p-values- The table 7 & 8 have been revised to present odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals alongside the previously reported p-values. 2.c The households using coils and repellents had higher disease prevalence is discussed but not thoroughly explained. Could reverse causation or confounding (e.g., higher-density mosquito areas using more coils) be responsible?- The justification has been provided in the last paragraph of discussion section. 2.d. No multivariate analysis e.g., logistic regression was performed, which could have clarified confounding between overlapping risk factors like vegetation, construction, and socioeconomic variables- The table 7 & 8 have been revised incorporating logistic regression analysis. 3.a. While the problem is important, similar studies have been published in other endemic settings. Authors are advised to clearly express the novelty—what new insights does this paper provide that prior research (e.g., Wilke et al., 2020; Garbin et al., 2021) did not- The study adopts novel objectives, focusing on an integrated approach that identifies key determinants of mosquito presence while simultaneously evaluating community measures, perceptions, and self-reported disease burden, providing context-specific insights from Mangalore that extend beyond previous studies in other settings. This has been incorporated into the conclusion. 3.b. The graphical representation of data is more understandable as demographic data is concerned- We appreciate the suggestion regarding graphical representation. However, we have retained the tabular format for demographic data, as it allow us for clear presentation of detailed counts and percentages across multiple categories, which may be less effectively conveyed in graphs. a . Scientific names like Aedes aegypti and Anopheles should be consistently italicized- This has been incorporated across the article. b. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are mosquitoes that belong to the Culicines category,’ -what does ‘category’ means here?- This has been revised in introduction section Para 3, line 1. c. Review of literature section can be merged with Introduction section- The Review of Literature section has been merged with the Introduction We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable time, insightful comments, and constructive suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions adequately address all concerns, and we look forward to the reviewer’s further feedback. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Khan S. Peer Review Report For: Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community responses: A cross-sectional study [version 4; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :661 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181258.r400061) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v1#referee-response-400061 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Determinants of urban mosquito population...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('T R et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661", templates : { twitter : "Determinants of urban mosquito population density and community.... T R et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-661/v4" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/164704/193548") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "193548"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "442631": 0, "425742": 0, "425743": 0, "419852": 0, "425740": 0, "419853": 0, "425741": 0, "442634": 6, "425738": 0, "419851": 0, "425739": 0, "442632": 0, "442633": 0, "425737": 0, "425746": 0, "425744": 0, "425745": 0, "419870": 0, "419868": 0, "419869": 0, "419866": 0, "419867": 0, "419864": 0, "419865": 0, "416574": 0, "416575": 0, "416582": 0, "416583": 0, "416580": 0, "416581": 22, "416578": 0, "416579": 0, "416576": 0, "416577": 0, "411250": 0, "422521": 0, "422534": 0, "422535": 0, "422532": 0, "422533": 0, "422531": 0, "422538": 0, "422539": 0, "422536": 0, "422537": 0, "443038": 10, "443039": 0, "443036": 0, "443037": 0, "443034": 0, "443035": 0, "443032": 0, "443033": 0, "411302": 0, "431526": 0, "411303": 0, "431527": 0, "431524": 0, "411301": 0, "431525": 0, "431523": 0, "443040": 0, "443041": 0, "411310": 0, "411308": 0, "431532": 0, "411309": 0, "411306": 0, "431530": 0, "411307": 0, "431531": 0, "411304": 0, "431528": 0, "411305": 0, "431529": 0, "400054": 0, "400055": 0, "400062": 0, "400063": 0, "400060": 0, "400061": 38, "400058": 0, "400059": 0, "400056": 0, "400057": 0, "413638": 0, "398022": 0, "413639": 0, "398023": 18, "413636": 0, "398020": 0, "413637": 0, "398021": 0, "413634": 0, "413635": 0, "398019": 0, "413632": 0, "413633": 0, "398028": 0, "398026": 0, "398027": 0, "413640": 0, "398024": 0, "413641": 0, "398025": 0, "436694": 0, "436695": 14, "436692": 0, "436693": 0, "436700": 0, "436701": 0, "436698": 0, "436699": 0, "436696": 0, "436697": 0, "436214": 0, "436215": 0, "410612": 0, "436213": 9, "410611": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "921808b9-cf7a-4ee1-add1-a711e7879a8e"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });